[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics. [Archive] - Page 2

View Full Version : [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8

Fyron

March 16th, 2003, 01:53 AM

for those of you who look at other news sources besides AM radio and Fox.No one here does that Rex. You really need to stay away from this thread for a few days so you can cool down and stop saying unfounded things like this.

rextorres

March 16th, 2003, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />for those of you who look at other news sources besides AM radio and Fox.No one here does that Rex. You really need to stay away from this thread for a few days so you can cool down and stop saying unfounded things like this.<hr /></blockquote>Your right - I'll stay away, but you did accuse me of "spouting propaganda".

[ March 15, 2003, 23:58: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Fyron

March 16th, 2003, 02:06 AM

No I didn't. You never answered the question (at least, I saw no response to it; sorry if I missed it if you did answer it). My request was for someone to answer it without spouting propaganda. There was no accusation against anyone, as no one posted a response to the question (excpet Thermodyne, but that was not an answer, it was just talking about what responses would be). Had you posted a response to it filled with propaganda, then you would have been accused of doing so. But, I do not recall seeing any responses that attempted to answer it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

geoschmo

March 16th, 2003, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
How many sources do you need? The London Times is a respected paper BTW - for those of you who look at other news sources besides AM radio and Fox. Just because Rush or O'Reilly conveniently forgets to mention how the U.S. is complicit doesn't make it not true.

The only reason this is mentioned is because some people are blaming France and Germany for the this when we helped arm Saddam in the first plance

No one's addressed the fabricated evidence that Powell presented at the U.N.
And why the pentagon is giving contracts to Cheney's buddies.
Or why we are all of a sudden in the business of nation building.
etc.

Also: I'll listen to this mysterious clip later today - when I have access.Personally I don't need any more sources, I just need one that shows something like the point you are trying to make. The fact that Iraq was once an ally is not a shock to anyone older than 6. Even if one accepts your accusation that the US is responsible for Sadaam, that only makes it more our job to clean up the mess we made. People aren't mad at France and Germany becasue they also helped make the mess. They are mad because they arn't helping clean it up, and in fact are obstructing our efforts to do so.

Noone has addressed Powell fabricating evidence, because that didn't happen. It's a lie.

The Pentagon gives contracts to lots of people. Cheney has lot's of associates. Everybody in poloitics does. The two facts together aren't proof of dispropreity.

The reason we are all the sudden in the business of nation building is because we are trying to protect the lives of our citizens and our strategic interests. In the past we could do that, or we tried to do that anyway, by exerting political pressure. In a post 9/11 world the rules have changed. When governments support these kind of activities they are held responsible. But you simply can't remove the old bad governemt and leave a vacuum. So we help Afghanistan rebuild, and we'll do it for Iraq too.

Geoschmo

primitive

March 16th, 2003, 02:11 AM

I have just listened to the clip. So what ?
There are Iraqi who is in favor of war, there are Iraqi who are against war.

Nobody in this forum has even vaguely indicated support for Saddam.

To answer the question:
Leaving Saddam in power will do absolutely nothing to promote peace and justice in Iraq.

Replacing Saddam will probably be an improvement in Iraq, but I doubt very much that it will make the world as a whole a better and safer place. I respect people who actually have thought about this and come to the opposite conclusion, but it is very clear (I don't talk about this forum now) that many people on both sides of the fence never have taken 2 minutes to think this over.

Fyron

March 16th, 2003, 02:30 AM

The point is that a major part of the girl's "argument" is that war will cause deaths. A few people will die, sure. But, many more will die if Saddam Hussein is left in power. Many have died from Saddam being in power. The only way to end the madness is to remove him from power. Leaving him in power will not solve any problems. The only way to help the Iraqi people is to remove Saddam. The girl was unable to address this, and many, many people that oppose the war make the same mistakes as her. Appeal to international law, negotiation, all of that stuff has failed repeatedly in the past to help the Iraqi people. You can not peacefully arrest the leader of another nation. All you can do is try to get them to act differently. This has failed repeatedly with Saddam. Do you think we should leave the guy in power so he can commit more atrocities against the Iraqi people?

primitive

March 16th, 2003, 02:37 AM

So the girl is a moron. I'll give you that.

So is a lot of people advocating the opposite view. Pointing out the moronity of your oponents is hardly usefull debating tactics.

rextorres

March 16th, 2003, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Originally posted by rextorres:
Noone has addressed Powell fabricating evidence, because that didn't happen. It's a lie.
Sorry I couldn't let this drop, but

Are you saying I'm lying or the particular news source CNN is lying? It was big news yesterday.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/

BTW I DO listen to O'Reilly and he IS blaming Germany and France for arming Iraq. Obviously not you but other people in this forum implied as much.

It not just any company that one the award, but Haliburton the company which Cheney was CEO.

I personally am for nation building, but one of the center pieces of W's campaign was against nation building and he severly criticized clinton for it.

They wanted to invade before 9/11 btw as the letter to Clinton clearly shows so 9/11 provided the cover not the reason.

[ March 16, 2003, 00:42: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Thermodyne

March 16th, 2003, 02:40 AM

This is typical; very few people that are against the war have taken a hard look at the situation. And even fewer offer any solutions that will fix the problem. We gave the region eight years of appeasement and that got 3000+ Americans killed. It got the side blown out of a ship, embassy�s bombed. What does it take to convince these peace nicks that force is the only thing that � of the world understands. Someone says lets have a march and the sheep flock out, asking �what are we marching for today?� Then when they find out that it�s a peace march, they think it�s cool. Just like the sixties marches were cool. They seem to be able to overlook the fact that we have been under attack for quite some time now.

We have the choice of responding like Israel, and fighting them in the streets of our cities, or going the hell over to their homes and killing the sick bastards there. Take a good look at Israel; do we really want mandatory military service, lifetime reserve status? Do we want to issue MAC-10�s to everyone so that they can defend their homes. How stupid can these people be? We support Israel, so most of the Arab world hates us, fine. They have the right to hate. But when they reach out and kill some of us, then they also have the right to die by the thousands. The value of human life is very high when viewed individually, but when taken in large Groups, it tends to break down into other indicators, such as economic earning power, contributions to arts and humanities, and the stability of communities. Perhaps the peace marchers should sit home for a few weeks and call the people who lost loved ones on 9/11. I think they might come away with a different perspective after having a look from the individual point of view.

Fyron

March 16th, 2003, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
So the girl is a moron. I'll give you that.

So is a lot of people advocating the opposite view. Pointing out the moronity of your oponents is hardly usefull debating tactics.The intelligence of that girl is not the issue. The issue is that the peace-nik view is wrong in this case. Peace will not help Iraq; it will only let Saddam stay in power and commit more atrocities.

dogscoff

March 16th, 2003, 02:46 AM

in support of rex, there is also the plagiarised "evidence" presented by the UK government Last month. I posted a link to it a few weeks ago.

Phoenix-D

March 16th, 2003, 02:50 AM

"http://www.timesOnline.co.uk/article/0,,3-528574,00.html

How many sources do you need? The London Times is a respected paper BTW - for those of you who look at other news sources besides AM radio and Fox. Just because Rush or O'Reilly conveniently forgets to mention how the U.S. is complicit doesn't make it not true. "

This one is better, Rex. The first article didn't support your point at all- this one does.

Phoenix-D

Thermodyne

March 16th, 2003, 02:52 AM

Rex, you quoted the article and then made a statement that the US knew all about the WMD because we still had the receipts. The article does not say that! It says that we provided real time intel and loans, along with advice. Old news my friend. It was well known that the US went out of its way to keep the Arabs and Persians at war. And that we made sure that both side had a steady supply of weapons. But we never gave them VX or anything like that. And you have implied that we did. So I would like to see you support your statement by supplying a link to these receipts. Is that too much to ask, after all, it was you who made the statement.

primitive

March 16th, 2003, 02:52 AM

Sorry Fyron, missed the question at the bottom.

There is a time and a place for everything. It is very difficult for people like us who have very little of the facts to deceide when it is the right time to remove someone forcefully. When enough of those who actually have info support an invasion, I will support it too (I am not a peace freak if you had that impression). But at the moment it is only GBW and a few of his closest friends (of those with the facts) who support the invasion.

geoschmo

March 16th, 2003, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
Sorry I couldn't let this drop, but

Are you saying I'm lying or the particular news source CNN is lying? It was big news yesterday.Ah, no Rex actually I did not see that. It's a disturbing piece of news, I'll grant you that. Not damning as it was only a small piece of coroborating evidence. Not exactly the foundation of the case against the Iraqi's. And your comment was that Powell fabricated evidence. Although that was probably a mistatement on your part. Unless you really are accusing Powell of creating these forgaries and passing them to the Brits so they could in turn pass them back to him and he could present them to the UN as evidence. Even the news article you cite doesn't make that wild accusation.

I thought you were refering to comments made by the Iraqi's at the time of the presentation that all of the evidence was false accusations by the US and Britain. This is patently not true and what I was refering too as a lie. I was not accusing you of lying or CNN. I was talking about the Iraqi's.

By the way Rex, check your email.

Geoschmo

rextorres

March 16th, 2003, 03:02 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Rex, you quoted the article and then made a statement that the US knew all about the WMD because we still had the receipts. The article does not say that! It says that we provided real time intel and loans, along with advice. Old news my friend. It was well known that the US went out of its way to keep the Arabs and Persians at war. And that we made sure that both side had a steady supply of weapons. But we never gave them VX or anything like that. And you have implied that we did. So I would like to see you support your statement by supplying a link to these receipts. Is that too much to ask, after all, it was you who made the statement.I did say it was a joke but a quote from the article:
"By the end of the decade, Washington had authorised the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications. These included poisonous chemicals and biological viruses, among them anthrax and bubonic plague."

I am not a pacifist BTW if we were attacking North Korea I would be behind that(one of the reasons we're not though is because it's not profitable). NK is about to have the bomb and they can deliver it. Still it would only take out us liberals in California.

geoschmo

March 16th, 2003, 03:02 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Rex, you quoted the article and then made a statement that the US knew all about the WMD because we still had the receipts. The article does not say that! Actually Thermo one of the links Rex had does say in it that we provided materials that could have medical or "other" uses. But it kinds of glosses over it and concentrates on the intelligence assistance more. Not sure what to make of that cause it seems that the nerve gas would have been mroe of a story. Perhaps they couldn't confrim that bit to their liking.

Regardless, it doesn't address the issue of how does our alleged past complicity mean we shouldn't take an active role in fixing the problem now.

Geoschmo

EDIT: Rex beat me too it. And a more detailed andswer to boot. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 16, 2003, 01:04: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Thermodyne

March 16th, 2003, 03:24 AM

I read that, and the reason for the gloss is that the Anthrax documents are public. Anyone can view them. Iraq got samples of barnyard varieties of several biological agents that are harmful to humans, as did a lot of other countries where the organisms were a problem. 97 countries was the number I believe. If Iraq went to the trouble to weaponize it, then perhaps we should not have included them. But why go to the trouble of all that when their main supplier already had the best weaponized strain in the world. All they needed to do then was grow it. At the time of the Gulf war, Iraq was not in the business of designing biologic agents, they were however very much in the business of growing them.

As to the Yellow Cake document, it is sad that it happened. But then I guess we need to look at the source. Then we need to look at the buyer. I would assume that the heads are already rolling over at the Central Stupidity Agency.

Thermodyne

March 16th, 2003, 03:41 AM

While Korea is not making the headline that Iraq is, it not as if we are doing nothing, we are just doing it quietly. This is a large escalation based on the nature of the threat.

� In February 2003 the 8th Army announced a stop movement policy which prevented soldiers from rotating out of South Korea back to the United States. This stop movement order currently impacts some 2,800 soldiers. It is not clear however whether or not the replacement for those soldiers have already arrived in the region thus making US forces presence larger then the normal 37,000 personnel.
� On February 6, the Navy ordered the USS Carl Vinson and its Battle Group to the Western Pacific where it will replace the Kitty Hawk Battle Group and be in position to respond to any events that may develop regarding North Korea. This development is listed on the US Forces Japan page.
� In late February the 2nd Battalion, 34th Armor Regiment, an element of the 1st Infantry Division arrived in Korea to participate in Foal Eagle. Fort Riley, the base that the 2-34 Armor is from indicated that between 400-500 soldiers were involved in the movement.
� On February 28 the Department of Defense ordered the deployment of 24 bombers to Andersen Air Force Base in Guam to act as a deterrent to North Korea. The deployment would consist of twelve B-52s and twelve B-1Bs. As of March 5 it was not clear which units would be sent or when they would deploy.
� By March 10, 2003 seven B-52s and ten B-1s were at Andersen Air Force Base. The aircraft belonged to the 7th Bomb Wing and the 2nd Bomb Wing.
� Elements of the 40th Infantry Division (Mechanized) were alerted to prepare to deploy to South Korea. This is not a normally scheduled deployment.
� On March 11 the Associated Press reported that at least six F-117 Nighthawks from the 49th Fighter Wing will deploy to the South Korea in support of RSOI/FE 2003. CNN on March 12 indicates that the aircraft are headed to Kunsan Air Base.
� It has recently been confirmed by GlobalSecurity.org that elements of the 3rd Wing have indeed been ordered to deploy to South Korea in support of RSOI/FE. Specific numbers or squadrons would not be disclosed. CNBC reported on March 10 that F-15s from Alaska were being deployed to South Korea or Japan.
� According to the International Herald Tribune on March 13, 2003 six F-117s departed New Mexico for Kunsan Air Base pn March 13 and will arrive in Korea on March 14.
� According to Stars & Stripes on March 13 elements of the 160th Special Operations Regiment (Airborne) are operating in South Korea. The element is E Company, and is normally based in the region.

tesco samoa

March 16th, 2003, 05:09 AM

"If Saddam is such a threat to the survival of civilization today that the global enforcer has to resort to war, why wasn't that true a year ago? And much more dramatically, in early 1990?" Noam Chomsky

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2422

Question... Why are we not going after Turkey for its attacks on the kurds ??? How is this different ?

[ March 16, 2003, 03:31: Message edited by: tesco samoa ]

mac5732

March 16th, 2003, 05:18 AM

IMHO, between the two powers, Iraq & Korea, the one I strongly feel is the more dangerous is most definitly North Korea. They are more military able and willing besides being stronger in relation for fighting forces.

During the Korean war, they and the Chineses sacrifices thousands of troops against certain objectives, where all they wanted was to see if the allies were willing to fight for them and how much they were willing to lose.

Their military is way above that of Irag and better armed and trained. Also IMHO they are more radical and willing to start a war then any other nation around.

Be afraid, be very very afraid

IMHO only Just my 2 cents Mac

tbontob

March 16th, 2003, 06:26 AM

It is interesting that so many nations are against the war in Iraq.

Further there are mass demonstrations against it.

Things are so crazy that that everything is being turned on its head and George Bush and the USA is being portrayed as the evil aggressor nation instead of Iraq.

On January 15th, I posted this in the Rating the President thread

---------------------------------------------

What I am about to say may upset a few people, but it is my opinion that George Bush missed the boat of being a great president.

Being a neighbour of the U S of A, I wondered from 9/11 why George Bush did not actively propose a world court and a world law.

With 9/11, he had a magnificent opportunity since almost every nation lost citizens in the twin towers.

IMHO, the shock of the collapse would have galvanized the major nations of the world into establishing a world court with teeth to deal with nations who terrorize others just as our national courts deal with individuals who terrorize individual citizens within national borders.

All, it need was a leader and in this I feel George Bush fell short.

Instead, he choose to go on a crusade against the Al Queda while requesting the rest of world follow. And most of the world did because of the loss of their citizens and because of the shock of the event.

Now he wants to go after Iraq and he also has an issue with North Korea.

I wonder why he didn't take the route of establishing a world court in concert with the support of other nations.

I can only come up with the concept that he feared that the U S of A would have to use its power somewhat more responsibly because it could come up on charges if it misused its powers.

Because as it now stands, the U S of A is the only superpower, both economically and militarily, and most nations do not want to seriously offend the U S of A because if push came to shove, the weaker nation is sure to suffer.

Generally, I feel that the U S of A has an admirable record in conducting itself in world affairs.

But power does corrupt and absolute power does corrupt absolutely. With no outside body like a world court to judge its actions, the U S of A will have to be unusually diligent in overseeing its own actions to ensure it does not misuse it's power.

One can argue we already have the United Nations and a world court. But it is apparent, they lack the the formulation of laws to deal with terrorism as well as the power to enforce it. With 9/11, Bush could have ensured major changes which would have made the world a safer place since all the nations would be an active participant rather than just following the lead of the U S of A whenever it suffers a catastrophe.

And before I am buried under a barrage of vitriol (probably from U.S. citizens), I want to say the above is only my opinion. : )
==========================================

But alas, Bush choose to keep his powerful military base and his "so-called right to wield it when and where he wishes."

Because Bush and the USA refuses to acknowledge a higher law, nations and the populace of the world are concerned.

And they are acting out their concern by refusing to support the USA.

Gryphin

March 16th, 2003, 08:04 AM

My guess on why we go after Iraq and not Korea,
There is no way we can win in Korea.
We can win in Iraq.

We go after Iraq because we can.

Fyron

March 16th, 2003, 08:51 AM

Question... Why are we not going after Turkey for its attacks on the kurds ??? How is this different ?You have to start somewhere.

Things are so crazy that that everything is being turned on its head and George Bush and the USA is being portrayed as the evil aggressor nation instead of Iraq.Well if we go to war, the US will be the aggressor. The aggressor is the one that is attacking, after all. Just pure semantics. The "evil" part is based off of ignorance though.

[ March 16, 2003, 06:54: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

tbontob

March 16th, 2003, 09:11 AM

Sorry, messed up Fyron's quote with my own comments.

Correct Version follows...

[ March 16, 2003, 07:25: Message edited by: tbontob ]

tbontob

March 16th, 2003, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by tbontob:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[QB <blockquote>quote:<hr />Things are so crazy that that everything is being turned on its head and George Bush and the USA is being portrayed as the evil aggressor nation instead of Iraq.Well if we go to war, the US will be the aggressor. The aggressor is the one that is attacking, after all. Just pure semantics. The "evil" part is based off of ignorance though.

<hr /></blockquote>[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>No, it is not just semantics. The term "Aggressor" is not soft and cuddly which is why it is being used. And many people associate aggressiveness with some form of evilness.

And ignorance is also not the issue. Once you are tagged with being "evil", it takes a lot of work to change it.

And unfortunately, ignorance can promote the association of "evil" with the current Bush administration and Americans in general.

Fyron

March 16th, 2003, 09:19 AM

Those are some confusing to read Posts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

No, it is not just semantics. The term "Aggressor" is not soft and cuddly which is why it is being used. And many people associate aggressiveness with some form of evilness.Semantics has nothing to to with softness or cuddliness. It has everthing to do with semantics. They say aggressor for (wrong) reasons.

And ignorance is also not the issue. Once you are tagged with being "evil", it takes a lot of work to change it. Yes it is. It is the ignorance of the people using such terms that causes this. They do not see the whole picture; they do not know what they are talking about. They are ignorant of the whole situation. This is why they brand the US as evil.

And unfortunately, ignorance can promote the association of "evil" with the current Bush administration and Americans in general.
So ignorance does indeed have to do with it. Why did you just say ignorance has nothing to do with it?

[ March 16, 2003, 07:23: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

tbontob

March 16th, 2003, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Those are some confusing to read Posts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

<blockquote>quote:<hr />No, it is not just semantics. The term "Aggressor" is not soft and cuddly which is why it is being used. And many people associate aggressiveness with some form of evilness.Semantics has nothing to to with softness or cuddliness. It has everthing to do with semantics. They say aggressor for (wrong) reasons.

<hr /></blockquote>Fyron words communicate both thoughts and feelintgs.

There is a world of difference between "You are a stubborn, jackassed mule" and "You are a very determined person."

Think about it and you will realize they both mean the same thing. What is different is their emotional content which in this case has to do with the proponents opinion of the person in question (not very good in the first, somewhat neutral in the second).

Similarly "aggressor" and "attacker" mean the same think but the the emotional content is different.

Now you think it is for the wrong reasons, but they think it is for the right reasons.

Just because you say it is for the wrong reasons does not, ipso facto, make it the wrong reason.

tbontob

March 16th, 2003, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[QB]
<blockquote>quote:<hr />And ignorance is also not the issue. Once you are tagged with being "evil", it takes a lot of work to change it. Yes it is. It is the ignorance of the people using such terms that causes this. They do not see the whole picture; they do not know what they are talking about. They are ignorant of the whole situation. This is why they brand the US as evil.

QB]<hr /></blockquote>No, it is you who is implying that ignorance is the issue and then dismiss it as not being relevant. Ignorant or not, Bush and the American people are starting to be tagged as "evil". That is the issue and most people would say this is not a good thing.

Fyron

March 16th, 2003, 09:47 AM

Umm... please reread what I posted. I never said anything about relevancy.

Fyron words communicate both thoughts and feelintgs.I never said they didn't.

tbontob

March 16th, 2003, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />And unfortunately, ignorance can promote the association of "evil" with the current Bush administration and Americans in general.
So ignorance does indeed have to do with it. Why did you just say ignorance has nothing to do with it?<hr /></blockquote>I didn't. But ignorance of people can be manipulated to promote a position of the issue which in this case, "Bush and the American people are 'evil'".

The real issue which they are trying to promote is "the evilness of Bush and the American people." One of the means of promoting that issue is the manipulation of the people's ignorance.

[ March 16, 2003, 07:51: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Fyron

March 16th, 2003, 09:51 AM

I know what I said. Simply quoting me doesn't do anything.

tbontob

March 16th, 2003, 09:52 AM

Where?

Explain yourself.

[ March 16, 2003, 07:52: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Fyron

March 16th, 2003, 09:52 AM

You edited your post. I guess you just clicked the wrong button. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Do you have a point? You have not contradicted anything I have said. Your (latest) Posts speak of entirely different thinks than mine do.

[ March 16, 2003, 07:54: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

tbontob

March 16th, 2003, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Umm... please reread what I posted. I never said anything about relevancy.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Fyron words communicate both thoughts and feelintgs.I never said they didn't.<hr /></blockquote>Oh, so you do not want it to be relevent?

And who said that you said they didn't?

[ March 16, 2003, 07:56: Message edited by: tbontob ]

tbontob

March 16th, 2003, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You edited your post. I guess you just clicked the wrong button. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Don't avoid the issue? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron

March 16th, 2003, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by tbontob:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You edited your post. I guess you just clicked the wrong button. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Don't avoid the issue? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>I posted that right after you edited your post, and then edited in my response. You edited the Where? post while I was posting. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Fyron

March 16th, 2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by tbontob:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Umm... please reread what I posted. I never said anything about relevancy.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Fyron words communicate both thoughts and feelintgs.I never said they didn't.<hr /></blockquote>Oh, so you do not want it to be relevent?<hr /></blockquote>What the hell are you talking about? Seriously. You have started to not make any sense.

tbontob

March 16th, 2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tbontob:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You edited your post. I guess you just clicked the wrong button. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Don't avoid the issue? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>I posted that right after you edited your post, and then edited in my response. You edited the Where? post while I was posting. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif <hr /></blockquote>Typical, the issue is not posting as you well know.

tbontob

March 16th, 2003, 09:57 AM

come on Fyron,

Get on topic! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Don't avoid it.

tbontob

March 16th, 2003, 09:59 AM

Obviously, you need time to collect your thoughts.

After 1 AM here. See you tomorrow.

Fyron

March 16th, 2003, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by tbontob:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tbontob:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You edited your post. I guess you just clicked the wrong button. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Don't avoid the issue? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>I posted that right after you edited your post, and then edited in my response. You edited the Where? post while I was posting. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif <hr /></blockquote>Typical, the issue is not posting as you well know.<hr /></blockquote>Umm... I did post the response.

come on Fyron,

Get on topic!

Don't avoid it.You are the one that got off topic in your response to my post. You have started arguing about things that my post did not address.

Obviously, you need time to collect your thoughts.No, that would be you, not me. My thoughts are collected.

[ March 16, 2003, 08:03: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

raynor

March 16th, 2003, 11:17 AM

In keeping with the chess analogy from a different thread, can we consider the Last set of Posts between Imperator Fyron and tbontob a stalemate by way of repeated moves--er, Posts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fyron

March 16th, 2003, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by raynor:
In keeping with the chess analogy from a different thread, can we consider the Last set of Posts between Imperator Fyron and tbontob a stalemate by way of repeated moves--er, Posts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif No. It is a stalemate because Tbontob started playing checkers in the middle. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Mephisto

March 16th, 2003, 01:52 PM

I think many people (not their leaders...) are concerned because they just don't see how attacking the Iraq will bring peace to the middle east in the long run.
The second thing that people concern is the attitude of the US government: they are right and the rest of the world is wrong. And because the US government "knows" that it is right it will ignore the opinion of the rest of the world no matter what and even fabricate evidence to support it�s cause. Can't you see why people are so very concerned about this? No matter how small an evidence they fabricated, they have lost the morale high ground of being "right" and the rest of the world "wrong" about a war. They start to look like a bully making up things so they can hit their target.
If any government begins to fabricate evidence and dismiss the law to do what it thinks is "right", where will it stop?

Thermodyne

March 16th, 2003, 04:39 PM

Iraq seems to think it will be war
_______________________________________

Iraq: Hussein Divides Country Into Military Districts
Baghdad; Washington, 16 March 2003 (RFE/RL) -- Iraq has put itself on a war footing as U.S. President George W. Bush tells the American people the country's military is ready to disarm Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein if need be.

In Baghdad yesterday, the Revolutionary Command Council issued a decree dividing Iraq into four military districts under Hussein to "repulse and destroy any foreign aggression," the official INA news agency reported.

Hussein's son, Qusay, was placed in charge of the regime's heartland of Baghdad and the president's hometown Tikrit.

Hussein's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, was placed in charge of the key southern sector facing U.S. and British troops massed in Kuwait. Al-Majid is known as "Chemical Ali" for his role in the 1988 campaign against rebellious Kurds in northern Iraq in which thousands of Kurds died, many in chemical weapons attacks.

Hussein's deputy, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, was placed in command of the strategic northern region. The central Euphrates district, which includes the Shi'ite Muslim holy sites, was placed under Mazban Khader Hadi, a member of the ruling Revolutionary Command Council.

Saddam himself retained sole authority to order the use of surface-to-surface missiles and aviation resources, the decree said.

"Each command of a region is in charge of defense affairs within its geographic boundaries and to lead and use all the financial, human, party organization, the people and military division to confront any foreign aggression aimed at Iraq's sovereignty, independence, and security as well as maintaining internal security," the decree said.

Meanwhile, in his weekly radio address, Bush said he has little hope Iraq will disarm peacefully: "There is little reason to hope that Saddam Hussein will disarm. If force is required to disarm him, the American people can know that our armed forces have been given every tool and every resource to achieve victory."

Later today, Bush will meet with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar on the Azores islands. The three have been trying for weeks to build a nine-vote majority in the 15-nation Security Council for a resolution authorizing force against Iraq. But only one other council member, Bulgaria, has publicly backed them.

U.S. officials said the summit on the Portuguese islands is not a war council, but aimed at increasing pressure on Hussein. But British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said war now looked "much more probable."

The French foreign ministry issued a statement saying nothing justified force now. France, along with Germany and Russia, also issued a call for foreign ministers to convene a meeting of the Security Council on 18 March to discuss the Iraqi crisis.

Also yesterday, Baghdad invited the top weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Muhammad el-Baradei to visit as soon as possible to discuss outstanding disarmament issues. Blix said he would study the invitation.

In cities across the world, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in what many saw as a final global protest against any U.S.-led war on Iraq.

Copyright (c) 2003. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036. www.rferl.org (http://www.rferl.org)

Thermodyne

March 16th, 2003, 04:43 PM

And the world has a new problem. This one also gets laid at the feet of the French. I wonder if they will need a UN resolution to put their man back into power.

DATE=03/15/03

TYPE=CORRESPONDENT REPORT

TITLE=CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC/UNREST (L-only)

NUMBER=2-300732

BYLINE=CHALLISS MCDONOUGH

DATELINE=ABIDJAN

CONTENT=

VOICED AT:

INTRO: Violence has broken out in the capital of the Central African Republic, in what appears to be a coup attempt. As V-O-A Correspondent Challiss McDonough reports from our West Africa bureau in Abidjan, gunmen have surrounded the president's palace and the airport.

TEXT: Reports from the capital, Bangui, say there was panic in the streets as automatic gunfire and artillery fire broke out Saturday afternoon, and truckloads of armed men were seen driving through the city.

Some of the heaviest shooting was heard near the presidential residence, which appeared to be surrounded. Heavy fighting was also heard near the airport. Both are now reported to be under rebel control.

The national radio station went off the air, and rebel fighters were seen near the offices of the state television station.

The violence erupted while President Ange-Felix Patasse was out of the country, attending a summit in Niger.

The French news agency, A-F-P, says his plane turned around after it was shot at as it tried to land at the Bangui airport. A-F-P says he has now landed in Cameroon, but there is no independent confirmation of that report.

Witnesses say the gunmen appear to be rebels loyal to former military chief General Francois Bozize, who led a coup attempt in October. The general fled to neighboring Chad when he failed to gain control of the government.

His fighters still held about half the country until recently, when the government claimed to have re-taken most of its territory.

President Patasse has survived a string of coup attempts since his election in 1993. His army is weak, and he has largely come to depend upon foreign troops to put down rebellion.

The most recent coup attempt in October was foiled by troops from Libya and rebel fighters from the Democratic Republic of Congo. The Libyan troops have since left the country, replaced by a Central African peacekeeping force. (signed)

NEB/CEM/PT

Thermodyne

March 16th, 2003, 04:51 PM

It would seem that Iraqis wish to leave their country at a rate that exceeds the rest of the world. This indicates to me that things are not as the press portrays them. The press shows poor people looking for food or selling their household belongings. This report would indicate that the middle and upper class are also leaving. Poor people don�t jet to Europe and hire a solicitor to file am asylum claim.
__________________________________________

DATE=3/15/2003

TYPE=CORRESPONDENT REPORT

TITLE=UNHCR/ASYLUM (L-ONLY)

NUMBER=2-300725

BYLINE=LISA SCHLEIN

DATELINE=GENEVA

CONTENT=

VOICED AT:

INTRO: A new study by the United Nations refugee agency, U-N-H-C-R, shows that Iraqis comprised the largest group of asylum seekers in industrialized countries Last year, replacing Afghans who now have fallen to fifth place. Lisa Schlein reports from Geneva.

TEXT: The U-N-H-C-R study shows the number of people who applied for asylum in industrialized countries Last year dropped by nearly five-and-one-half percent, compared with the year before. The U-N refugee agency attributes this decline in large part to the dramatic drop in the number of Afghans seeking asylum.

Nearly two-million Afghan refugees have gone home since the fall of the Taleban in late 2001. Most returned from neighboring Pakistan and Iran.

U-N-H-C-R spokesman Rupert Colville says the Afghans have been replaced by Iraqis at the top of the list of asylum-seekers coming to industrialized countries. He says they are followed by those coming from former Yugoslavia, Turkey and China.

/// COLVILLE ACT ///

In terms of percentage changes, Zimbabweans showed the biggest increase in 2002. They were up by 83 percent on 2001 with a total of eight-thousand-600 applications. The biggest decreases after the Afghans were Sierra Leoneans, who were down 43 percent.

/// END ACT ///

/// OPT /// The new statistics show more than 580-thousand asylum claims from all nationalities were lodged in 37 industrialized countries in 2002. This is nearly 35-thousand fewer than the year before.

The report notes this number is small when compared with some 13-million refugees and asylum seekers throughout the world, most of whom are found in developing countries. /// END OPT ///

Mr. Colville says the largest recipients of asylum seekers among the industrialized countries Last year were the United Kingdom, followed by the United States, Germany, France and Austria.

/// COLVILLE 2nd ACT ///

The top three asylum seeker Groups coming to the U-K -- Iraqis, Zimbabweans and Afghans -- all three of which are countries with strong historical links to Britain. /// OPT /// Zimbabwe was a British colony, Iraq was a British protectorate and Afghanistan had close links with British India. Between them, these three Groups account for more than a quarter of all asylum seekers that went to the U-K Last year. /// END OPT ///

/// END ACT ///

The U-N-H-C-R study notes the number of people seeking asylum in central European countries has decreased for the first time since 1994. It says countries such as the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia have tightened their asylum rules, as they prepare to join the European Union next year. (Signed)

NEB/LS/ALW/TW

Thermodyne

March 16th, 2003, 05:24 PM

I have seen a lot of Posts in this thread and I respect most of the positions. One of the problems I have noticed is that many people rely on CNN, MSNBC, and other large Entertainment services to provide facts for their statements. These are poor sources, the show the things that create Ratings and color stories to make them more news worthy. For months now they have put great strength in the position that the inspector take during their reports to the UN. Has anyone of you seen a CNN story about the failure of inspections in the past. The UN has never completed a successful program. I would like to suggest that those of you who have a real interest start checking the raw data, the reports that CNN and MSNBC edit and add unrelated video to. Also check the reports that are written by respectable sources. Sure, it takes time to read them, but you will learn a lot from them. The other day I posted a report writhen by the State Dept. during the Clinton years. It was damning then and is still on the valid list today. But not one reply about it? Some of you should read it. Here is a link to a paper done by a think tank. The worldly among you will recognize the name, and realize that this group has impeccable credentials, unlike some of the fly by night tanks that have been quoted to date. We all have systems with net access, go out and look around. There is a lot of raw data to be had.

http://www.csis.org/burke/iraqishellgame.pdf

Inspections will never solve the problem in Iraq, and every member of the Security Council knows it.

raynor

March 16th, 2003, 08:09 PM

Personally, I am *hoping* that all members of the Security Council are aware of evidence for going to war. But as long as there isn't war, they benefit from profitable trade relations with Iraq. In the event of war, I *hope* the US can quickly enough find hard, solid evidence of WMD. It that is the case, then the impact on the world of the US going it alone *may* not be so severe.

On the other hand, if the US invades Iraq, and a month later still hasn't found any evidence of WMD, then I worry which direction the world opinion will turn.

Of course, I think that there is and already has been found evidence of WMD. It is interesting how a week or two before a possible war Iraq is revealing this and that bomb, UAV, etc. But this is still pretty minor compared to the THOUSANDS of GALLONS of VX gas we thinks Iraq manufactured. If the US invasion finds ->THAT<-, then I hope that will sway world opinion back towards the US.

[ March 16, 2003, 18:09: Message edited by: raynor ]

rextorres

March 16th, 2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
I have seen a lot of Posts in this thread and I respect most of the positions. One of the problems I have noticed is that many people rely on CNN, MSNBC, and other large Entertainment services to provide facts for their statements. These are poor sources, the show the things that create Ratings and color stories to make them more news worthy. For months now they have put great strength in the position that the inspector take during their reports to the UN. Has anyone of you seen a CNN story about the failure of inspections in the past. The UN has never completed a successful program. I would like to suggest that those of you who have a real interest start checking the raw data, the reports that CNN and MSNBC edit and add unrelated video to. Also check the reports that are written by respectable sources. Sure, it takes time to read them, but you will learn a lot from them. The other day I posted a report writhen by the State Dept. during the Clinton years. It was damning then and is still on the valid list today. But not one reply about it? Some of you should read it. Here is a link to a paper done by a think tank. The worldly among you will recognize the name, and realize that this group has impeccable credentials, unlike some of the fly by night tanks that have been quoted to date. We all have systems with net access, go out and look around. There is a lot of raw data to be had.

http://www.csis.org/burke/iraqishellgame.pdf

Inspections will never solve the problem in Iraq, and every member of the Security Council knows it.When you don't like the message criticise the messenger.

If you google the authors of this article, for instance, it turns out that they are pretty conservative - so I could dismiss them as being slanted. So . . . I'm not sure what info from the news sources are suspect.

Did Powell present fake evidence at the UN? He did! - If so what else is fake?

Was the US one of the main suppliers of arms to Iraq in the eighties? Yes it was.

Has Cheney given big post war contracts to his buddies at Haliburton? Yes he has.

Did members of the Bush administration want to go to war before 9/11? Yes they did.

BTW - There is this presupposition that the inspections aren't working - but the inspectors - who are supposed to be experts in this stuff - say they are. I trust the inspectors more than I trust W - especially now. (where's the resolution he promised to present?)

Are you claiming that Blix is secretly working for Saddam?

Thermodyne

March 16th, 2003, 08:51 PM

Was the US one of the main suppliers of arms to Iraq in the eighties? Yes it was.

BTW - There is this presupposition that the inspections aren't working - but the inspectors - who are supposed to be experts in this stuff - say they are. I trust the inspectors more than I trust W - especially now. (where's the resolution he promised to present?)

Are you claiming that Blix is secretly working for Saddam?[/QB]Well first off, where are these American weapons, when I look, I see soviet and French arms with German facilities. Guaranteeing loans and supplying arms are two different things. It comes down to the old statement that the enemy of my enemies is my friend. Also, we are talking the 80�s here; the relationship was at best cool. Do you recall an American ship hit by a French missile fired from an Iraqi warplane? That would be French supplied weapons I think.

As to the expertise of the inspectors, I would challenge their credentials in any court of law. They are not anywhere near the best people that could have been found and their leader was picked because of his manageability.

tesco samoa

March 16th, 2003, 08:53 PM

I seem to get the feeling that anti-war means pro-sadam. It is not.

The pro-war side against Iraq has yet to proove a solid reason to attack Iraq.

Every Iraqi Weapon of mass Destruction claimed by the US and Britan has thus far turned out , when inspected by the UN to be clean. The Cia and MI-6 claim they know Iraq is still hiding nerve gas. If so why not give these locations to the UN inspectors ? The germ making trucks " Winnebagos of Death" have turned out to be mobile food testing labs. The "Drones of Death" turned out to be model airplanes.

General Hussein Kamel states that he personally supervised the destruction of Iraq's Nerve gas in 1991. Other experts state that their germ and gas weapons would have now deteriorated through age into inertness.

The 150 km range al-samound missles may have exceeded their range by 10 to 15 km. So what. And their being destroyed.

Unable to link Iraq to Osama bin Ladan the bush/blair shift gears. Now it is about liberation. WHy not in the 80's when these worst crimes were committed.

Now the CIA Iraq desk chief has posted the question that the Halabja gassing of the Kurds may have been accidentally caused by Iran.

I have yet to see any proof of a reason to go to war with Iraq. As one fact is prooven as a lie the propaganda machine pumps out two more.

Their has not been one arguement presented that gives a single reason why this war must occur.

All I see is that we have to rely on faith of the USA/Britan Gov't.

Lets hope thier is not another gulf of Tonkin or Iraq build up on Saudi boarders, no doubt their will be. Perhaps 1 or 2 weeks into the war some WMD will be discovered.

Funny in another thread faith is underattack, as it is here.
To me it looks like a re-election winnable war. It has been done many times before in history.

Dr. Hasan El-Attar states that "Those for war are quick to label those who oppose the war as Pro-Saddam. I am a dissident to the regime of saddam who left iraq in 1975. I oppose this war against the suffering Iraqi people while at the same time I look for the real punishement for the butcher of Baghdad."

I do as well. I look for punishement against the butcher of Baghdad. Not, the butchering of Baghdad.

Uvas

March 16th, 2003, 08:59 PM

I must say that many people are in ignorance of the carnage the U.S. has handed the country of Iraq.

It is estimated that 500,000 Iraqis will die from our "shock and awe" campaign. That's right, a cool half MILLION people in a little over a week! All in the name of getting those biologicals that the U.S. GAVE to Iraq...I've seen the CDC info that documents the transfers. It names West Niles, Bubonic Plague, Anthrax, and Smallpox. They were given to Saddam back when the U.S. was backing him during that Iraq/Iran war. If you search publications like Wall Street Journal, you will find articles from the 1980's stating what a stand-up guy Saddam is....our "Man Of The Year" for Christ's sake.

Thermodyne

March 16th, 2003, 09:27 PM

Wanna see what we are bombing Iraq with today?

http://globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_art-of-war.htm

Thermodyne

March 16th, 2003, 09:31 PM

Hmm....
___________________________________

The Sunday Mail March 16, 2003

Iraqi Tyrant Prepared To Unleash Hell

In-Depth Coverage

By Steve Mckenzie

SADDAM could deliberately provoke a nuclear attack on Baghdad in a doomsday scenario being scrutinised by US generals.

They fear the Iraqi tyrant could launch chemical weapons at Israel to spark a terrifying retaliation on his own people.

Thousands of Iraqis would die, but Saddam reckons the world would be appalled and demand an immediate cease-fire.

British and US troops would also be targeted with al-Samoud missiles armed with chemical warheads.

American military analyst John Pike said: "A nuclear attack against Baghdad would outrage world opinion. International and public pressure would be so great it would stop the war.

"Saddam, of course, would be tucked away somewhere safe and nowhere near downtown Baghdad."

America threatened to attack Iraq with a nuclear bomb if it used chemical weapons in the 1991 Gulf War.

Pike said: "The Gulf War was an excellent example of how weapons of mass destruction work as a deterrent.

"But this time the deterrent has already failed. The US are not deterred from attacking Iraq by what residual chemical and biological weapons it has."

He added: "Saddam will use these weapons because he has nothing to lose."

Pike, who heads security think tank Globalsecurity, warns that Saddam will launch a strike similar to Vietnam's Tet Offensive - but with weapons of mass destruction. The Tet offensive was a massive surprise attack in 1968,when 80,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops struck at towns across South Vietnam.

Pike said: "Saddam will launch chemical attacks the moment he thinks the war will start.

"He will strike at Kuwait with al-Samoud and fire Scuds on Israel.

"Saddam will try to inflict large casualties on American and British troops in the style of the Tet Offensive.

"I think America is gambling that Iraq's weapons are ineffectual and that the regular soldiers will stay in their garrisons and Republican Guard put up a fight for a few days."

Experts say Saddam will resort to medieval tactics and use the environment against the hi- tech weaponry of America and Britain.

Refugees who have fled Baghdad claim large ditches filled with oil have been dug around the city. They will be set alight to throw up a curtain of flames and thick black smoke. Land around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers could be flooded to bog down tanks.

The tactic was used during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war and saw hundreds of Iranians trapped and killed.

If he doesn't succeed in getting Baghdad nuked, Saddam is set to turn the city into a bloody battleground.

Pike said: "Baghdad would become Grozny or Stalingrad - pick any urban warfare nightmare of modern times."

Saddam, who uses body doubles, may have already fled Baghdad to go into hiding

Pike said: "We don't know where he is. Maybe we will be hunting him like we are bin Laden.

"But Saddam is also prepared to die rather than surrender because he thinks it will make him a leader who died in victory."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright � 2003, Scottish Daily Record & Sunday Mail Ltd.

rextorres

March 16th, 2003, 09:48 PM

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." -- Julius Caesar

People can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism. -HERMAN GOERING

War is also a good way to win an election

[ March 16, 2003, 19:53: Message edited by: rextorres ]

geoschmo

March 16th, 2003, 09:51 PM

"I will give money to your family if you strap dynamite to your body and blow up innocent people." -- Sadaam Hussain

VampiricDread

March 16th, 2003, 09:54 PM

I've been reading with some interest this thread, because I believe on hearing other people's opinions, or better, actively LISTEN before voicing my own views.

With my country active envolvement today at the 3+1 Azores Summit, against the majority of Portuguese desire for peace, I believe the time is ripe to have a contribution to your discussion.

FACTS: Saddam Hussein is a dictator, in control of 24% of the world oil reserves. His regime had weapons of mass destruction, and actively procured more, before the Gulf War. His regime is responsible for crimes against Humanity, namely gassing entire civilian populations.

DOUBTS: Iraq may or may not possess weapons of mass destruction, though it is questionable if Iraq could deploy them beyond its close neighbours. Iraq has never been known to host terrorist Groups (like Kadafi's Lybia did), though this is arguable. Iraqi people have been suffering from their regime, though the propaganda states otherwise.
Will this war against Iraq benefit anyone?

CERTAINTIES: The world economy will suffer from an armed action against Saddam's regime, prolonging the economic crisis affecting the global economy. The Iraqi people will suffer (and die) from the impending war. Many citizens from the US, UK, and possibly UN forces, plus Spanish and Portuguese will die or be targeted.

EVALUATION: Do I believe the world will be better after the war due next week? Not really.
Sure, we'll rid ourselves of Saddam (unless he is as good a mover as Bin Laden), but what about China, North Korea, Israel, etc? Will also the Western countries like the US, UK, France, Russia, etc. dump their weapons of mass destruction? Will the next move against institutionalized terrorist regimes strike Israel, North Korea, and Lybia, to name but 3 will follow swiftly? Not likely.

CONCLUSION: if you are religious, pray; if not, have hope that the Saddams, Bushes, etc. will never get to power in the future, because were all pawns in a game we cannot control. Whatever your beliefs are, let's all hope this dark period ends quickly, and Humanity learns to respect each other's life,( though I'm cynic about it).

Thank you all for your attention, and please reflect on the consequences of the actions the people we vote for Power next time you vote (if you're allowed to do it).

DavidG

March 16th, 2003, 11:36 PM

For all those out there that are opposed to a war and are anti-Saddam I have one simple question. What do you propose to do about Saddam Hussein and his regime?

tesco samoa

March 17th, 2003, 05:59 AM

Damn I had a nice answer all written out...

David G that is a hard question to answer. One noone here can answer.

The standard responces will be special ops, assination etc...

But one should not put in writing that they hope one man kills another. So I am going to pass on this question as it is too hard to answer

But I ask you a question in return

What is the Democracy that will be brought to Iraq ?

Since this is why the west is going to war right http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Surely not Kurdistan out of this ( I think they will be the future terrorists.... )
Surely not the majority ruling Iraq. Since their religous believes are too close to the ruling party in Iran.

Andr�s

March 17th, 2003, 06:08 AM

http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_dear_raed_archive.html#90779364

Fyron

March 17th, 2003, 06:59 AM

If you google the authors of this article, for instance, it turns out that they are pretty conservative - so I could dismiss them as being slanted. So . . . I'm not sure what info from the news sources are suspect.Oh of course. Conservatives are devils and always lie. Liberals are angels and always tell the truth. Thanks for clearing that up for us Rex. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Of course, this is not directly what you said, but it is the type of belief that would lead you to make such a statement. I am not going to guess at what your thought processes were, but I do know what you said, and it is very, very wrong. There could not possibly be a conservative that is right, could there?

primitive

March 17th, 2003, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
For all those out there that are opposed to a war and are anti-Saddam I have one simple question. What do you propose to do about Saddam Hussein and his regime?Sadly, Saddam is not the only rotten egg out there. He is the worst, but there ar others that’s almost as bad.
If the US is going to enforce the “Pax Americana”, be sure to apply the same treatment to the leaders of other countries that disregard human rights and kill thousands of their own people. Here are some countries from the top of my head which leaders deserve the same treatment as Saddam.
North Korea
China
Indonesia
Myanmar
Israel
Palestina
Libya
Sudan
Sierra Leone
Zimbabwe
Colombia

Roanon

March 17th, 2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
Sadly, Saddam is not the only rotten egg out there. But the only one with control over oil...

Ruatha

March 17th, 2003, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Damn I had a nice answer all written out...

David G that is a hard question to answer. One noone here can answer.

The standard responces will be special ops, assination etc...

But one should not put in writing that they hope one man kills another. So I am going to pass on this question as it is too hard to answer

But I ask you a question in return

What is the Democracy that will be brought to Iraq ?

Since this is why the west is going to war right http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Surely not Kurdistan out of this ( I think they will be the future terrorists.... )
Surely not the majority ruling Iraq. Since their religous believes are too close to the ruling party in Iran.Currently the Kurds in the north of Iraq are running a democracy. Now they are afraid that the Turks will go in and occupy them with US help.
Still, most of them welcome the war but they are aswell afraid of what the consequences might be. As I've stated before; Before the war no one knows for sure what the outcome will be.

Ruatha

March 17th, 2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
"I will give money to your family if you strap dynamite to your body and blow up innocent people." -- Sadaam HussainAhh, not withstanding that Saddam is a psychopat, we can all agree on that.
But this must be a made up quote.
Saddam Hussein does not see any Isreali as innocent, quite the opposite.

DavidG

March 17th, 2003, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:

What is the Democracy that will be brought to Iraq ?

Since this is why the west is going to war right http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
In short I don't know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif But surely anything is better than Saddam.

DavidG

March 17th, 2003, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DavidG:
For all those out there that are opposed to a war and are anti-Saddam I have one simple question. What do you propose to do about Saddam Hussein and his regime?Sadly, Saddam is not the only rotten egg out there. He is the worst, but there ar others that’s almost as bad.
If the US is going to enforce the “Pax Americana”, be sure to apply the same treatment to the leaders of other countries that disregard human rights and kill thousands of their own people. Here are some countries from the top of my head which leaders deserve the same treatment as Saddam.
<hr /></blockquote>I agree 100% (although not completely with the list) but In my opintion this is a reason to encourage action against those other contries not to avoid taking action against Iraq.

Aloofi

March 17th, 2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
Here are some countries from the top of my head which leaders deserve the same treatment as Saddam.
North Korea
China
Indonesia
Myanmar
Israel
Palestina
Libya
Sudan
Sierra Leone
Zimbabwe
ColombiaWhy are you putting Israel in the same bundle with all those other countries?
You are not believing all that stupid anti-Israeli propaganda, aren't you?

Its funny how the only democracy in the middle east gets targetted by the west. Talk about double standards. I guess they can't forgive the existance of a jewish state.
The Europeans love to see the jews as defenseless victims, but when the jews start kicking some *** in selfdefense........
Israel had nukes for the Last 30 years, can anyone tell how many times they have been used?
None.
Do you know why?
Because Israel only uses its nukes as a deterrance to conventional warfare. If Israel didn't had nukes it would have been invaded and destroyed already. Just look at all the Arab media says about Israel, and how they discriminate Israelis for being jews!!!

.

primitive

March 17th, 2003, 04:32 PM

Aloofi:
I recognize Israel’s right to defend themselves against outside aggressors.

I put them on the list because some of their leaders (probably) are war criminals.

Until Sharon is tried by an unbiased court regarding his role in the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre, Israel will be high on my list.

dogscoff

March 17th, 2003, 04:38 PM

You are not believing all that stupid anti-Israeli propaganda, aren't you?
Here's some anti-isreali propaganda from Amnesty International. (http://web.amnesty.org/802568F7005C4453/0/32C1070883CB9E0D80256B8F0050C45F?Open&Highlight=2,palestine) EDIT: Another, more detailed, article from Amnesty. (http://web.amnesty.org/802568F7005C4453/0/CEE5365FB0D98FD680256CD1005EBFD7?Open) Don't think I'm taking sides against the Isrealis here, either. As that article points out and I'm sure you'll agree, the Palestinians have done some pretty brutal things too. Imho both sides are as bad as one another here.

Its funny how the only democracy in the middle east gets targetted by the west.
Simply being a democracy does not automatically make their actions acceptable.

Israel had nukes for the Last 30 years, can anyone tell how many times they have been used?
None.
Hooray- Israel has nuclear weapons and never used them. Give them a medal. whoopee.

Do you know why?
Because they can oppress the palestinians just as effectively with tanks, fighters and bulldozers.

[ March 17, 2003, 14:49: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Aloofi

March 17th, 2003, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Because they can oppress the palestinians just as effectively with tanks, fighters and bulldozers.Let me show you some "opression":

This is from the Jerusalem Post

"Mourning the Death of Peace

Alyssa A. Lappen
February 23, 2001

I am a Jew. I am a poet. I am heartbroken. Next to God and Jerusalem, the thing most central to Judaism is peace. But my people's fervent prayers for peace - embodied for millennia in every Jewish prayer - every one - again go begging, when they seemed at Last so close to fruition. We find our homeland unwittingly immersed in another war, the sixth in Israel's short life.

The United Nations years ago equated Zionism with the basest human emotion. Yet my most beloved friend, also a poet, was an Arab. Chris Khattar gave me priceless encouragement to renew the poetic voice I had lost for 15 years. Before he died of Hodgkin's in 1992, I gave him a poem. I am also fortunate to count among my neighbors, colleagues, fellow-poets, like-minded parents and friends, other Muslims and Arabs, Christians, African Americans, East Indians, Native Americans, Hispanics, Chine Japanese, and people who are disabled, sightless, gay - anyone, in short, open to mutual respect and willing to bless me with kindness, intelligence, wisdom. By this Jewish precept - respect - I strive to conduct all my affairs.

Last spring I felt great pride in learning that my first chapbook, The People Bear Witness, would soon appear in a journal published by Catholic theologians along with work by a Palestinian poet. Honored to be in his company, I wrote him an email, kindly forwarded by our editor. I was heartened by his praise for my work, but disappointed by his failure to return my salutations - in Hebrew and Arabic - of peace. I had high hopes for the Camp David II talks then in progress; he signed note only, "Cheers."

Months later as violence erupted, I extended a hand again - a small gesture I nevertheless felt necessary: Jewish theology requires small acts of goodness. These in turn can save lives - and each life is considered as an entire world. His reply pained me: On the one hand, he accepted my sincerity. On the other, he questioned it: "The Jews demand, rightly, apologies and compensation from those who wronged them. These are not part of Israel's negotiating discourse. That is why, to tell you the truth, I find your signature at the end (Shalom, Salaam) too casual." For every gain his people might make, he said, "we will pay a terrible price." I wrote our editor, "When even poets cannot talk, we have a problem in Jerusalem." I had no idea yet how big.

A great deal more death and pain followed. I reconsidered the poet's reply. Towns, cities, a whole culture died with six million Jewish Holocaust victims. German and world debts incurred cannot be counted, much less paid. How unjust to compare a people - murdered throughout history simply for being Jews 1 - with one that intended in 1948 to conduct another genocide. In 1947, Arab League Secretary General Azzam Pasha prom "a war of extermination," "a momentous massacre" to be remembered "like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." 2

Jerusalem Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini - who had spent World War II in Nazi Germany and was indicted for war crimes by Yugoslavia, though never prosecuted - declared a holy war. "Murder the Jews, murder them all," he cried. 3

Under Oslo, Israel negotiated in good faith to exchange recognition of a new Palestinian state for peace--despite the fact that Arabs already have 22 nations, including the de facto Palestinian state of Jordan, and 5.25 million square miles, roughly half again as large as the U.S. That is another reason I found the allegation--"Jews are not willing to pay"--offensive. Israel's offer of peace at Camp David II was so generous that most world leaders warmly congratulated Ehud Barak at the UN conference in September. How quickly memories fade. Barak's largesse afterwards grew--expanding under fire to include sovereignty over the most-cherished Jewish holy site--the Temple Mount. Several Israeli ministers resigned in protest and Barak's government collapsed. Still, bombers and gunmen took Israeli lives--adding to more than 3,500 Arab attacks on Israelis, averaging more than 30 a day since September and more than 438 murders of Israelis since the Oslo accords were signed. Arab terrorism and intransigence alone account for Ariel Sharon's landslide victory on February 6.

Contrary to press reports, even Sharon supports peace: He served as a key negotiator at the 1979 Camp David Peace Accords with Egypt and as Defense Minister in 1982, dismantled two Israeli settlements - the first in Israel's history, against a backdrop of sharp criticism. Sharon supported peace with Jordan and negotiated increased water transfers to her. In 1998, Sharon was Israel's chief negotiator at Wye River. The result was the transfer, to full Palestinian Authority control, of 13 percent of Israeli controlled territories in Area C and 14.2 percent of joint Israeli and Arab lands in Area B. Shortly thereafter, Israel offered accelerated timetables to conclude negotiations within nine months. Then as now, the Palestinian Authority rejected the plan.

In historical context, Israel has done little except give and pay. To understand how much, let us retreat into history. In the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, a litany of Christian travelers - Siebald Rieter and Johann Tucker, Arnold Van Harff and Father Michael Nuad, Martin Kabatnik and Felix Fabri, Count Constantine Francois Volney and Alphonse de Lamartine, Mark Twain and Sir George Gawler, Sir George Adam Smith and Edward Robinson - found Palestine virtually empty, except for Jewish communities in Jerusalem, Safed, Shechem, Hebron, Gaza, Ramleh, Acre, Sidon, Tyre, Haifa, Irsuf, Caesarea, and El Arish, and throughout Galilee towns - Kfar Alma, Ein Zeitim, Biria, Pekiin, Kfar Hanania, Kfar Kana and Kfar Yassif. They cannot all have been wrong. To stay, these Jews had submitted to innumerable conquerors, taxes, pogroms and degradation. But they stayed. But by 1799, Palestine was still so much in need of people that Napoleon Bonaparte championed a full-scale return of Jews. 4

By the mid-19th century, up to 100,000 people lived in Palestine, including a high percentage of Jews, whose forebears had lived there for thousands of years. In 1882, roughly 200,000 Muslims lived in all of Western Palestine. 5 By 1918, the situation had not changed much: That was why Hussein ibn-Ali, Sherif of Mecca, and his son, King Faisal of Iraq, both endorsed and extolled the Balfour Declaration. 6

Hussein wrote in Mecca's Al Qibla, in 1918, "The resources of the country are still virgin soil and will be developed by the Jewish immigrants. One of the most amazing things until recent times was that the Palestinian used to leave his country, wandering over the high seas in every direction. His native soil could not retain a hold on him.... At the same time, we have seen the Jews from foreign countries streaming to Palestine from Russia, Germany, Austria, Spain, and America. The cause of causes could not escape those who had a gift of deeper insight. They knew that the country was for its original sons [abna'ihi-l-asliyin], for all their differences, a sacred and beloved homeland. The return of these exiles [jaliya] to their homeland will prove materially and spiritually an experimental school for their brethren who are with them in the fields, factories, trades and all things connected to the land." 7

In early 1919, King Faisal, then the only recognized Arab leader in the world, executed a treaty with Chaim Weizmann adopting the understanding of the Balfour Declaration. It outlined relations between Palestine and the Arab state, recognizing the former as a National Home for the Jews, in which they should quickly settle. He wrote, "We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our delegation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday to the Zionist organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper." (emphasis added) 8

The 1919 Faisal-Weizmann treaty provided a firm foundation for League of Nations ratification of the Balfour Declaration at the San Remo Conference in 1920. The proposals covered Palestine - from the Mediterranean through the entire Galilee, up to the Litany River, hundreds of miles east of the Jordan River through all of current day Jordan, and into part of the Sinai. The League assigned Palestine Mandate administration to Britain, entrusting it to establish the National Home for the Jews Jewish state. 9

Instead, the British grossly corrupted the Mandate's enforcement, planting the seeds of the current conflict. By 1923, they had illegally and unilaterally lopped off the territory east of the Jordan River--75% of the original Palestine Mandate--as a new kingdom for Emir Abdullah. They tore the northern Galilee from Palestine and gave it to the French as part of Lebanon. The northern slice of the Sinai, which remained under British administration, they gave to Egypt.

The Jewish people neither protested nor fought this whittling away of 75% of their Homeland. The Jews did not even raise arms when the British began in the 1920s to limit the Jewish immigration encouraged by the League of Nations Mandate, or when Britain instead allowed illegal Arab immigration from neighboring lands to benefit from the economic development of the Jewish communities. 11

What new land the Jewish people acquired, they bought - often in deserts or swamps. Hadera, for example, was the worst malaria-ridden swamp in Palestine when Jewish pioneers arrived from the coastal plain in 1891 - buying land at full price. 12 The British largely ignored their Mandate obligation to sell Ottoman state land to Zionists. This provided absentee Arab landlords a lucrative monopoly. Some 64% of Zionist land purchases through 1946 were from Syrians, Lebanese, Palestine Arabs or Egyptians - like the clan of Mufti al-Husseini, Yasser Arafat's uncle - who had bought it from Turkish sultans for a song. In 1944, Jews were paying $1,100 an acre for untilled land. Iowa farms then sold for less than $110 per acre. Another 27% of their land, Zionists bought from Arab farmers. 13

In 1921, the British appointed Jerusalem Mufti al-Husseini, who was already inciting hatred of Jews. A series of riots culminated in the 1929 massacre of 67 Jewish students in Hebron - and the expulsion of Jews from a town they had inhabited for 400 years. Husseini's vitriol ignited more anti-Jewish riots in 1936. Britain then turned League of Nations policy on its head. Its 1939 White Paper unilaterally cut Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine to a trickle - condemning six million Jew Nazi Europe to death. 14

The false idea that Palestine Arab farmers had been displaced, first adopted in anti-Jewish propaganda in 1909, took on a life of its own. 15 "In fact, every square inch of land acquired from Arabs was paid for," writes Samuel Katz. This included settlements at Kfar Darom and Gush Etzion, bought from Arabs in 1930. When Arab attackers won them in 1948, Jews there - like the 100,000 in Jerusalem - were murdered and expelled. 16 In 1947, 70% of Israel's land came directly to the new government, as transferred former Ottoman government holdings from the British Mandate. None had ever been privately owned. 17

Jewish history has been one of paying, and paying, and paying--in cash, in land, in blood. My poetic colleague forgets, along with the rest of the world, that the 1947 United Nations partition plan provided for two states--one Jewish and one Arab. But Israel's Arab neighbors begrudged her even the little that was left of the original Palestine Mandate. Rather than accept a tiny Jewish state to live peacefully alongside yet another Arab one, seven Arab nations attacked the fledgling Israel in 1947. That war, in which Britain encouraged and joined Israel's Arab foes, took 6,000 Israeli lives--more than 1% of her population--equal to half, proportionately, of the devastating 620,000 U.S. losses in the Civil War, and three times the 400,000 U.S. losses of World War II.

I come back again and again to the history that brought us to this painful place, of which recent reports have been so devoid. As a woman with 25 years of experience on world class journals I find Middle East coverage Kafkaesque. Far from adhering to minimum standards of objectivity, reporters feed the flames of war.

They almost ubiquitously refer to the West Bank and Gaza as "occupied territory," obliterating in those words many critical facts: First, they were part of the original Palestine Mandate. Second, UN Resolution 242 recognizes Israel's pre-1967 borders as indefensible thanks to a four-nation attack on her. Third, Jewish settlements were reestablished on land Jews had purchased, from which tens of thousands were illegally expelled in 1948. Fourth, the Palestinian Authority already governs 99% of the Arab population there. Fifth, the PA would soon govern 95% of West Bank land had it accepted a settlement. Sixth, previous Egyptian and Jordanian occupations were illegal under international law but earned no approbation. Seventh, Arab occupiers failed to establish the new Arab state the UN called for. Eighth, Israel was ready to cede huge areas to parties which have not demonstrated willingness to be peaceful.

The press swallowed whole the claim that Sharon's Temple Mount visit provoked the conflict. Nevermind that Arabs began exploding bombs at Netzarim junction on Sun. Sept. 24--five days before. Or that David Biri, who died the day before, was an Israeli. (So was Ethiopian-born Yossi Tabaji, killed point blank by his Palestinian Authority patrol partner.) Nevermind that Sharon was investigating the Wafq' s removal and dumping of priceless artifacts from Judaism's holiest site--including a large stone fragment from the Triple Gate jamb dating to the Second Temple. While the PA had assured Sharon there would be no problem, at the Mount he was verbally assaulted by three Arab Knesset members, who egged rioters on.

In fact, Arabs planned the riots - having earlier carted in rocks to hurl on Jewish worshipers below. Tanzim and uprising leader Marwan Barghouti admitted to The New Yorker (Jan. 29), "The explosion would have happened anyway. It was necessary in order to protect Palestinian rights. But Sharon provided a good excuse. He is a hated man." News reports let the error stand - and repeat it endlessly.

More than 3,500 attacks on Israelis, averaging more than 30 a day and 350 attacks on Jews and synagogues worldwide since September, orchestrated by Muslims, have attracted little notice. Dozens of Israelis have been murdered by lynchings, sniper fire, ambushes, bombs and acts of war since September--and more than 438 Israeli citizens have been killed since the Oslo accords of 1993, at least a quarter more than Arabs have lost since September. Yet press sympathy for Israeli victims pales when compared with that Arabs, who are dying only because they fight. Columnists recognizing Arab aggression - like George Will, William Safire, Jeff Jacoby and Joseph Farah - are exceptions. Most reporters, though, effectively bless the war on Israel and Jews as an understandable result of "frustration."

In its failure to examine a long history of Arab wars against Israel, 18 Arab claims - or even current evidence - the press promotes propaganda, making aggressors of victims, victims of aggressors. A recent column in Harper's, for example, reprinted from an Internet zine, makes the unsubstantiated claim that Israelis in 1948 marched Arabs out of their towns at gunpoint. No names, dates or specifics are cited.

Readers are supposed to accept the assertion on its face. But in a fabulously well-documented book, Fabricating Israeli History, University of London Professor Efraim Karsh exposes such claims as largely baseless, malevolent alterations of fact. 19 Arab aggression created this tragic situation.

Arab leaders long ago acknowledged that refugees' flight in 1948 was not the result of brutal Israeli policy, but of their leaders' own war and encouragement to leave - rather than recognize Israel. Emile Ghoury, an Arab commander and Palestine High Committee secretary, in 1948 told the Beirut Daily Telegraph, "The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the actions of the Arab states, in opposing partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed to this policy unanimously, and they must share in the solution of the problem." (emphasis added) In 1948, acting committee chairman Jamal Husseini told the UN, "The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce.... They rather preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings, and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town. And this they in fact did." 20

Similarly, British General Glubb Pasha, who built the Transjordanian army, wrote in an August, 1948 London Daily Mail, "The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of war." Even a victim of the Deir Yassin massacre noted in 1948 in Al Urdun, "The Arab exodus from other villages were not caused by actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by Arab leaders t to fight the Jews." 21

British Palestine police in April, 1948 reported, "Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open, and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe." 22 Mass Arab flight from cities like Haifa began before the UN Partition and snowballed when fighting began. 23 Many Arab, UN and British sources sound the same themes: Refugees left to make way for invading Arab armies, which lost the war.

Next, the number of refugees was wildly inflated, as the United Nations admits. Reporters routinely refer to "millions" of refugees. But in 1947, British figures show, only 561,000 Arabs lived in the part of Palestine that became Israel. After the war, 140,000 remained. No more than 420,000 Arabs can have fled Israel in 1948. Emile Ghoury then put the actual number at 200,000. 24 The inflation is akin to that -city welfare rolls in the 1970s and 1980s. Welfare reform curbed the latter. But the UN has no incentive to curb either its own employment, or the number receiving its largesse. 25 Certainly some refugees still live in camps in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza. A large number also claim such status simply because it pays.

Refugees are universally considered persons displaced from permanent residence by war. But in 1948, the UN recognized as refugees Arabs who lived in Palestine for only two years. Why? Before 1948, hundreds of thousands of Arabs from Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and even Morocco, migrated illegally into Palestine, unchecked by British police, who meanwhile blocked Jewish immigration into the land mandated to Jews by the League of Nations, with King Faisal's blessing. These illegal immigrants largely make up the people now ubiquitously called Palestinians. 26 Arafat himself is from Egypt. 27

Which brings us to the "right of return." Every Arab nation rejected UN Resolution 194, passed in 1948 to assist Arab refugees, because it excluded an automatic right of return. The resolution suggests that refugees may return - or obtain compensation - provided they accept Israel's right to exist and live in peace. This also covered 850,000 Jews expelled from Arab lands, leaving homes, businesses, land worth $30 billion, a point virtually everyone now ignores. 28 In any case, most Palestinians still fail to meet the UN criteria for return: More than 75% of those recently polled support armed conflict against Israel's "occupation" - meaning all of Israel - some, even by children. 29 The latter defies at least six UN resolutions condemning military exploitation of children.

Most disturbing is the failure to object to state-sponsored Arab hatred of Jews. Arab religious, political and military leaders tell the West they want peace, but in Arabic call for Israel's destruction and wholesale murder of Jews. A Nov. 17 program broadcast by Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based Arabic news channel, for example, hosted a debate on the future of the Intifada. PA Minister of Information Yasser Abd Rabbo, Deputy Hamas political bureau chief Musa Abu Marzuq and London- analyst Bilal Al-Hassan all argued for Israel's destruction, through war or negotiation (translated by MEMRI).

Weekly sermons broadcast by the PA (also translated by MEMRI) show the bloody intentions of Palestinian clerics - ideological heirs to Arafat's uncle, Mufti al-Husseini - calling the faithful to "kill" Jews "where ever you find them," to cleanse Palestine of Jewish "infidels." Palestinian "experts" declare the Holocaust a lie. Palestinian textbooks teach that Jews are base - and it is good to die killing them. Their maps show only Palestine in Israel' place. 30 The equal of this can be found nowhere in Jewish theology or Israeli government policy. In fact, Israel outlaws political parties espousing hate. 31

Such mass hatred of Jews, rivaling that of Hitler's Germany, cannot be ascribed to deprivation, or even oppression. It existed long before Israel was established. 32 It is a common albeit unfortunate theme on Arab websites. An Internet search for The Protocols of Zion, for example, provides more than 5,000 hits, many at Muslim sites which promote it as gospel truth. 33 As Hitler proved, hate greases war. Arab calls for violence now mirror incitements of 1948, when Arab leaders hoped to soon wash Israel "into the sea." For true justice, the world must recognize this hate and warmongering - and pray for it to stop.

As to oppression, Jews can speak with some authority. Deprived for centuries, ostracized, impoverished, forced to live in ghettos, expelled wholesale from numerous countries, murdered in the name of religion, murdered with no excuse, denied rights to vote, work, own businesses or land, Jews never spoke venomously against another people, or raised a hand of war. Not even now. Arabs have no right to do so, either.

The tragic situation of Arabs still living in refugee camps, 53 years after their first war on Israel, must be addressed. But as Commander Ghoury said in 1948, "The Arab states agreed on this policy [of denying Israel] unanimously and they must share in the solution." I would like my voice to be part of a solution. I would like to offer a hand of friendship to my Arab colleague and have it warmly accepted. I am like all Israel in this. Each life is a whole world, and too many worlds have already been extinguished. We mourn for the deaths of others as our own. 34 We mourn the death of peace.

Mourning, however, does not permit us to let our own light be extinguished. Israel, the Jewish state, is our home. Only when her Arab neighbors accept our state, can there be a just peace. Eliyahu (Elias) Sasson, the Damascus-born head of the Arab section of the Jewish Agency said it well, when in 1947 he begged Abd al-Rahman Azzam, then Secretary-General of the Arab League to say yes to peace:

"You and us stand today at the crossroads of history. It depends on you whether you are going to hamper our path or accept us as we ask to be accepted, as sons of the East.... Our work of reconstruction will proceed whether our neighbors wish it or not, but it depends on them what part our new Commonwealth will take in the revival of the Middle East. The choice is theirs. Let me end by quoting a passage from our Holy Bible. 'I have set before thee life and death, blessing and cursing: se life, that both thou and thy seed may live'." 35

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alyssa A. Lappen worked on staff for 25 years for such publications as The New Haven Register, Forbes, Corporate Finance, Working Woman and Institutional Investor. Her poetry has appeared in more than 20 print and Internet literary journals, including International Poetry Review, Sow's Ear Poetry Review, Ruah, Blueline, Heart Quarterly, Out of Line, Touched by Adoption, ForPoetry.com, KotaPress.com, New Works Review, Kudzu and Neovictorian/Cochlea.
Copyright 2001 - Alyssa A. Lappen

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] The worst examples of oppression, aside from the Holocaust itself, were the Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, Czarist and Stalin's terrors, and the forced Arab expulsion of 850,000 Jews from Muslim lands. However, through history Jews have been the target of malicious rumors and even theology.
[2] Collins, Larry and Lapierre, Dominique, O Jerusalem, p. 400.
[3] The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust; Collins & Lapierre, O Jerusalem, p. 400.
[4] Katz, Samuel, Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine, pp. 90-115. Katz, an Israeli historian, makes wide use of Arab sources, as well as news reports of the day. This broad sourcing, from the Arabs, UN, British and other non-Israeli sources, makes his work particularly useful.
[5] Katz, Battleground, pp. 90-115 (citing De Haas, Jacob, History of Palestine: The Last Two Thousand Years, New York: Macmillan, 1934), 123-127; Peters, Joan, From Time Immemorial, pp. 244-245, citing Dr. Carl Herman Voss, The Palestine Problem Today, Israel and Its Neighbors (Boston: Beacon Press, 1953), p. 13. Western Palestine (also then called Southern Syria) was considerably larger than the area that later became Israel. It is very misleading to cite their populations interchangeably, as Peters details.
[6] Katz, Samuel, Battlegound: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine, 123-127.
[7] Katz, Battleground, pp. 125-127
[8] Katz, Battleground, pp.125-127
[9] Katz, Battleground, pp.125-127
[10] Katz, Battleground, pp. 51-69, ; From Time Immemorial, pp. 341-343.
[11] Katz, pp. Battleground, 51-69; Peters, Joan, From Time Immemorial, pp. 225-332.
[12] Honig, Sarah, "For the Love of Hadera," Jerusalem Post, Dec. 8, 2000.
[13] Sources; Aumann, Moshe, Land Ownership in Palestine, Government of Palestine Survey of Palestine, 1946, cited in Katz, pp. 231-232; Peters, Joan, From Time Immemorial, PP 200-359. Yasser Arafat's lineage: Shaykh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, co-Chairman, Root and Branch Assoc.
[14] Peters, Joan, From Time Immemorial, pp. 333-350; Katz, Samuel, Battleground, pp.72-78; Encyclopedia of the Holocaust
[15] Peters, From Time Immemorial, pp. 201-215. Later on, during British Mandate rule, a 1937 call for Arab claims of land dispossession produced 664 applications, and those proved displaced were given lands by the government, or the "declined the land offered on the grounds that they were accustomed neither to the climate of the new area nor to irrigated cultivation." p. 302
[16] Sources: a) Honig, Sarah, "For the Love of Hadera," Jerusalem Post, December 1, 2000; b) Aumann, Moshe, Land Ownership in Palestine; Government of Palestine Survey of Palestine, 1946, cited in Katz, pp. 231-232; c) Collins and Lapierre, Oh Jerusalem; d) Peters, Joan, From Time Immemorial, pp. 323-324.
[17] Sources: Aumann, Moshe, Land Ownership in Palestine; Government of Palestine Survey of Palestine, 1946, cited in Katz, pp. 231-232; Peters, Joan, From Time Immemorial, pp. 200-359; Committee for Accuracy in the Middle East Reporting in America.
[18] Seven Arab nations attacked Israel in 1947; Egypt against Israel in 1956, four nations attacked her in 1967, Egypt attacked in the 1970 War of Attrition; two attacked in 1973; and there was a prolonged Arab assault from Lebanon in 1982. Arab nations - even those at peace with Israel - routinely refer to Israel as the aggressor; but Israel has not once initiated war on another state. Even the 1982 invasion of Lebanon was to defend against ceaseless Arab bombardments of northern Israel by Katyusha rockets.
[19] Harper's, "Readings", December, 2000; Karsh, Efraim, Fabricating Israeli History, Frank Cass, 2000; other sources include From Time Immemorial, by former newswoman and peace negotiator Joan Peters and Samuel Katz' Battleground: Shapira, Anita, "The Past is Not a Foreign Country," New Republic, Nov. 29, 1999; Teveth, Shabtai, "The Palestine Arab Refugee Problem and Its Origins," Middle Eastern Studies, April, 1990.
[20] Katz, Battleground, pp. 15-20
[21] Katz, Battleground, pp. 18-19; see also Collins and Lapierre, Oh Jerusalem, pp. 274-281. The incident began with a battle in which virtually every Arab male carried a firearm. Although Jewish fighters insisted that the killing of scores was the result of Arab opposition, atrocities did occur. But the vast majority of Palestine's Jewish community condemned them as a violation of Jewish and Zionist ideals. Jerusalem Arab High Committee member Hazam Nusseibi later recalled that using the news of the events to shock Arab governments proved a "fatal error," which stirred panic and flight.
[22] Katz, Battleground, pp. 18-19
[23] Karsh, Efraim, Fabricating Israeli History: The New Historians, Frank Cass, 2000, p 24
[24] Katz, Battleground, pp. 20-22
[25] Katz, Battleground, pp. 23-28; United Nations; Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.
[26] Peters, From Time Immemorial, pp 1-10, 137-171, 196-340; Katz, Battleground, pp. 231-233, citing Palestine Royal Commission.
[27] Peters, Joan, From Time Immemorial, pp. 401-402, citing Thomas Kiernan, Yassir Arafat; Shaykh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, co-Chairman, Root and Branch Assoc.
[28] Jerusalem Post, January 3, 2000
[29] United Nations; Bir Zeit University Poll as reported in Jerusalem Post, Nov. 14, 2000; Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.
[30] see: www.memri.org; (http://www.memri.org;) www.edume.org; (http://www.edume.org;) www.pmw.org.il. (http://www.pmw.org.il.)
[31] New York Times, Jan 1, 2001
[32] Peters, Joan, From Time Immemorial, pp. 33-79; Katz, Samuel, Battleground, pp. 70-75
[33] www.alltheweb.com; (http://www.alltheweb.com;) The Protocols of Zion, also known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, according to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, purports to be prove a plot of Jewish leaders to take over the world. It was circulated in Russia in 1905 by a Czarist secret policeman, in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s by Hitler's henchmen and in the Soviet Union by Stalin. Apparently forged in 1894 by the head of the foreign branch of the Russian secret police, it was taken from two 19th century sources - a satire by Maurice Joly, Dialogues in Hell, and the 1868 novel, Biarritz, by Hermann Goedsche (aka Sir John Retcliffe). It now circulates widely again - in the Arab Middle East, and in the US, where Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Borders are selling in volume over the Internet.
[34] Many Jewish congregations now say Kaddish, the Hebrew prayer of mourning, for both our own and Arab dead. It is a blessing of God, of life and of peace, thereby renewing our fervent hopes for peace.
[35] Sasson, Eliyahu, as cited in Karsh, Efraim, Fabricating Israeli History, pp 75-77.

primitive

March 17th, 2003, 05:07 PM

Aloofi
It’s a nicely written piece, and nobody here denies the fact that the Jewish people have suffered (and still suffers) great injustice.

That does however not justify all the things the state of Israel does (and have done).

dogscoff

March 17th, 2003, 05:13 PM

Aloofi - Nowhere in your article does it address Amnesty International's accusations of oppression, brutality and torture made against the israeli government. No matter what Israel and the Jewish people have suffered throughout history, they will never have the right to do what they are now doing. Furthermore, they will never bring about peace by antagonising the Palestinians in this way.

Read the second article I linked to, and then tell me that it's all (a) untrue or (b) justified. you would need to produce some pretty hefty evidence to bring me round to (a), and I will never accept (b).

Finally, I want to acknowledge that the majority of israelis want peace and liberty for the palestinians. It is only a minority committing these crimes against humanity.

Aloofi

March 17th, 2003, 05:39 PM

Anesty international?

They use as a source what the Palestinian tells them. Far too many times I've seen them telling outright lies . They forget that all those camps are the source of attacks on Israeli civilian population.

just answer this question:
Why are still refuge camps in there?

They are all under the PA control, they ARE in Palestine, so what's the motive to keep them up?

They are training camps. Period.
They train their operatives there, surrounded by civilians as both the source of recruits and a human shield.
Remember the Second Battle Of Jenin?
A "refugee camp", britsling with terrorist, and then the western media clamied that there was a "massacre" there. When the "Massacre Theory" was proven wrong not even one newspaper or TV channel reported an apology, they left the "massacre" in the mind of their readers.....
Tell me this, when was the Last time a western army went to battle without artillery or air bombardment as ground preparation?
In Jenin the IDF went in on clean, like a WWI infantry charge without artillery support, paying with Israeli blood so the "media" wouldn't blame the IDF of firing on civilians that offer themselves willingly as a human shield and many times they are nothing more than terrorists posing as civilians.
But of course, the first thing the Palestinians did, as always, was to claim that massacre was ocurring, and the western media dutyfully reported this, as always, as true without investigating.

Answer me this, when was the Last time you saw an Israeli family mourning their losses on your TV?
How about never!?
When was the Last time you saw a Palestinian family doing this? Do you need a calculator?

primitive

March 17th, 2003, 05:58 PM

Aloofi:
Once again in this thread I am made speechless. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif There is obviously not possible to have a rational discussion here, so I withdraw from this thread until its back on topic.

dogscoff

March 17th, 2003, 06:00 PM

Answer me this, when was the Last time you saw an Israeli family mourning their losses on your TV?
How about never!?
When was the Last time you saw a Palestinian family doing this? Do you need a calculator?
I don't know what the news coverage is like where you are, but I see both sides dying and mourning on British tv.

If you're not going to produce any evidence to deny what I've posted, then I'm going to leave this discussion again. All I'll say is this:
I hope God is proud of his peoples, because I'm not.

Krsqk

March 17th, 2003, 06:29 PM

This is slightly off topic (actually, more on the original topic http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ), but related. Has anyone else heard about Hussein putting parts of his Republican Guard in US uniforms and others in civilian clothes? This is almost sure to inflate the early estimates of "friendly fire" and civilian casualties.

In other news, it looks like it's time to hold on and wait out the ride. Maybe tomorrow it all starts? We can only pray it will be over quickly.

Mephisto

March 17th, 2003, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
I don't know what the news coverage is like where you are, but I see both sides dying and mourning on British tv.I want to know this, too. Both sides are killing each other, one with sucide bombs, the other firing missiles in dense housing areas at times. Until the killing stops on both sides, there will be no peace.

David E. Gervais

March 17th, 2003, 06:34 PM

..here's my 2 cents..

"Peace is not an 'Act' or a 'state of being', Peace is what's left when you remove hatred, violence, persicution, and yes even racism."

"Before people can live in peace they must first learn to live without hate, to live without violence, to live without racism, and to live without fear."

It is a hard lesson to learn, and one I feel people will never fully learn.

Hate is most often born of jealousy, violence is most often born of 'the desire to control', racism is born of ignorance, and fear is the basis of most modern day economies.

Don't wish your enemy dead, wish him a long life, it's a much crueler fate!

someone once said.."I know the truth and even if I shout it at the top of my lungs, nobody will hear it. Why? Because to hear the truth you have to be willing to listen!"

..the end!

Aloofi

March 17th, 2003, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by David E. Gervais:
.. someone once said.."I know the truth and even if I shout it at the top of my lungs, nobody will hear it. Why? Because to hear the truth you have to be willing to listen!"

Great quote. I completely indentify with whoever said it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

DavidG

March 17th, 2003, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
Aloofi:
Once again in this thread I am made speechless. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif There is obviously not possible to have a rational discussion here, so I withdraw from this thread until its back on topic.OK to get back on topic. An often heard reason for not going after Saddam is that there are other countries out there commiting similar or worse attrocities. This is a logic I don't understand. Just because we can't rid the world of all the human rights abUsers doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Another often heard reason is that the only reason we are going after Iraq is the oil. The flip side of the coin is that Saddam is the most dangerous because he is sitting on top of several billion (or trillion??) dollars worth of oil.
I think it would be great if there were a way to get rid of Saddamn and his regime without a war. I just don't know what it is.

dogscoff

March 17th, 2003, 06:56 PM

I said I was leaving this discussion, but we seemed to have changed the subject, so...

An often heard reason for not going after Saddam is that there are other countries out there commiting similar or worse attrocities.
Not quite. This fact it used to support the assertion that Bush & Blair's motives are not as altruistic as they'd have us believe.

[ March 17, 2003, 16:56: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Aloofi

March 17th, 2003, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
[QUOTE]

If you're not going to produce any evidence to deny what I've posted, then I'm going to leave this discussion again. All I'll say is this:
I hope God is proud of his peoples, because I'm not.Evidence?
What ever I post you will say its biased, from an Israeli source, and doesn't count. I've seen this trick before.

Besides, you will always believe what you want to believe. When 850 000 jews were expelled from Arabs countries and all their properties confiscated nobody said a word, when the Jordanian and Egyptian govertments begun building settlements in the areas of Israel that they conquered during the 1948 war and kept under their control until 1967 nobody said a word.
Nobody cared when the Jewish community in Gaza was massacred and expelled, and their houses occupied by Arabs. Nobody said one word when the Egyptian govertment ordered the UN troops in Sinai out so they could invade Israel, oh no, the whole world called it "Israeli agression". And when Northern Israel was bombed back to the stone age in 1982, with entire Kibbutzim being leveled and Israel invaded Libanum to kick them out of range it was called "Israeli aggression", and the whole world came together like one to vote a zillion UN resolutions against Israel.
So you know what?
Fck the world!
I don't give a sht what anybody believe. Israel is there, and its a military power, and that's why everybody hate it. They want jews as victims, not as independent and sovereign human beings.

And about the proud thingy you said, is pointless to reply, but you already know what I think.

tesco samoa

March 17th, 2003, 07:30 PM

Please tell me what attocities has Suddam commited since GW1.

a link to read

http://praeter.org:8080/iraq_timeline_letter.pdf

another

http://thomasash.hypermart.net/currentaffairsandhistory/kangas-ciaatrocities.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/du.html

Please tell me why this is a proper war to fight.

Its like I wish for Mayor Mel Lastman to be removed from power in Toronto so I flatten Toronto.
40000 people die... and maybe Mel is among them. Maybe not.

If the US want a regime change why not a surgical strike.

One can only hope that with this order of Democracy their is super sized freedom fries with it.

Also what additional rights will the USA people have to give up in the coming days, weeks, years... to win the war in the middle east , far east and those other places inbetween, near and far away.

I quote that bastard laden
"freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people - and the West in general - into an unbearable hell and a choking life."

P.S.

Sorry for the swear word. but thats what i feel their and i feel it is happening.

Antonin

March 18th, 2003, 01:26 AM

So. GloboCop George Bush and his Lords of Chaos say they want to attack Iraq because someday, maybe, Iraq might possibly attack us. But wait--aren't Dick Cheney and Colin Powell the same knuckleheads who fumbled the Last war against Iraq? Didn't they (along with George Bush I) tell us twelve years ago that the half a million soldiers we had poised in the desert south of Baghdad couldn't be allowed to finish off the dictator Saddam Hussein because keeping Saddam's regime in power was vital to the preservation of Iraq's territorial integrity and regional stability? And now they want to start the whole bloody mess up again? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Thermodyne

March 18th, 2003, 01:30 AM

Saddam goes to bed tonight and has a dream, first thing in the morning, he calls Bush.

�George, this is Saddam. Last night I had a dream and I think it might have been a vision. I was in Washington, and everywhere I looked there were signs praising Iraq�s great leader, Saddam! They were praising me. What do you think of that?

Bush replied that the call had awakened him from a dream.

�I was in Baghdad and everywhere I looked there were signs.�

Saddam excitedly asked what the signs said, and Bush replied.

�I couldn�t tell, they were all written in Hebrew.�

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ March 17, 2003, 23:31: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

primitive

March 18th, 2003, 01:51 AM

Good one Thermo.

This discussion needs more smileys.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

CEO TROLL

March 18th, 2003, 02:32 AM

By Rush Limbaugh (WAIT!!! it is still worth reading)

I think the vast differences in compensation between the victims of the
September 11th casualty, and those who die serving the country in uniform,
are profound. No one is really talking about it either because you just
don't criticize anything having to do with September 11th.

Well, I just can't let the numbers pass by because it says something really
disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country.

If you lost a family member in the September 11th attack, you're going to
get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000,
all the way up to $4.7 million.

If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in
action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of
which is taxable. Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the
surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a
payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18,
those payments come to a screeching halt.

Keep in mind that some of the people that are getting an average of $1.185
million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough.

We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma
City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the
September 11th families are getting. In addition to that, some of the
families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as
well.

You see where this is going, don't you?

Folks, this is part and parcel of over fifty years of entitlement politics
in this country. It's just really sad.

Every time when a pay raise comes up for the military they usually receive
next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle
East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low
rent housing.

However our own U.S. Congress just voted themselves a raise, and many of you
don't know that they only have to be in Congress one-time to receive a
pension that is more than $15,000 per month and most are now equal to be
millionaires plus. They also do not receive Social Security on retirement
because they didn't have to pay into the system. If some of the military
people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7 you may receive a pension
of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed you in harms way receive
a pension of $15,000 per month.

I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks
before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and
daughters who are now fighting.

"When do we finally do something about this ??"

If this doesn't seem fair to you, it is time to forward this to as many
people as you can.

Fyron

March 18th, 2003, 02:53 AM

Don't you realize how hazardous it is to be a US Senator? You can get booed! People could stop liking you, and call you bad names if you don't do what they want you to do. There is so much psychological trauma, that ex-Senators need tons of money so they can live a luxurious lifestyle to counter-act possible losses of reputation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif {--- more smileys for ya primitive

geoschmo

March 18th, 2003, 02:58 AM

What's small, white, fluffy, and has a really BAD ATTITUDE?!?!

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1047948890.jpg

tbontob

March 18th, 2003, 03:50 AM

Bad attitude! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

French/U.S. relations are in the basement.

So, it's war. Saddam will never leave!

geoschmo

March 18th, 2003, 04:07 AM

Originally posted by tbontob:
So, it's war. Saddam will never leave!No, not peacefully he won't. The 48 hours isn't really for him anyway. Bush knows he won't leave on his own. The 48 hours is for the UN and other foreign non-combatants to get out of dodge. And to give the Iraqi soldiers a good idea of what time to be away from their equipment.

"Akhmed, what time is it? 9 o'clock? Uh, I think I left something in my tent, I'll be right back..."

TerranC

March 18th, 2003, 04:08 AM

I wonder if the New Orleans city government will change Mardi Gras into Big Freedom Tuesday.

Thermodyne

March 18th, 2003, 04:40 AM

Well in a few days the French will have to scratch one rich dictator off of their list of economic assets. Gas will cost more in Paris, and there will be a surplus of consumer goods. Consumer 155mm rounds, and consumer radars, consumer Roland�s and consumer heat seekers. But not to worry, as was once said in a popular movie �There is another�. They will just have to dust off the deals they had with Kadafi[sp]. I�m sure he would like to buy a breeder.

As a side note, there was an Israeli on the shuttle when it went down. First Israeli in space. Anyone know what his other 15 minutes of fame were.

Baron Munchausen

March 18th, 2003, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:

As a side note, there was an Israeli on the shuttle when it went down. First Israeli in space. Anyone know what his other 15 minutes of fame were.He was one of the pilots who bombed the reactor that the French were building for the Iraqis.

tesco samoa

March 18th, 2003, 06:15 AM

yep and add one rich dictator to america's list in about 2 to 3 weeks...

tbontob

March 18th, 2003, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
yep and add one rich dictator to america's list in about 2 to 3 weeks...If not sooner.

If the Americans have major successes early in the war, I would think he will be assassinated.

Or possibly he will take Hitler's route.

tesco samoa

March 18th, 2003, 03:17 PM

sorry for being so rude the Last few Posts....

but we all know america can deliver a good war

but the question one must ask.

can america deliver a good peace.

It is the answer to this question that is very important. Right now I would say no.

Aloofi

March 18th, 2003, 03:24 PM

Link: Bush and Cheney (http://www.theonion.com/onion3833/bush_wont_stop_asking.html)

[ March 18, 2003, 13:25: Message edited by: Aloofi ]

Aloofi

March 18th, 2003, 03:29 PM

http://graphics.theonion.com/pics_3826/bush_hunger_strike.jpg

WASHINGTON, DC�Against strenuous objections from his advisors, President Bush began a hunger strike Monday to protest human-rights abuses in Nepal, vowing to subsist solely on water and vitamin supplements until "the twin clouds of violence and oppression are lifted from the land."

Above: Bush sits in front of the White House on Day Two of the hunger strike.
"I can no longer stand idly by while the gentle, peace-loving Nepalese people are made to suffer," said Bush, a longtime admirer of Nepalese culture. "This hunger strike will send a strong message to the government of Nepal and the insurgent Maoist rebels that their suppression of freedom and subjugation of the innocent is not going unnoticed."

Since 1991, Nepal has been locked in a bloody struggle between its constitutional monarchy and the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN), a Maoist guerrilla group seeking to overthrow the oft-oppressive regime. Thousands of innocent civilians have lost their lives in the crossfire.

After years of human-rights abuses by both the government and the CPN, Bush felt it was necessary to take action.

"In recent months, there has been a sharp increase in the use of deadly force on both sides," said Bush, seated on a mat in the Rose Garden. "There have been numerous reports of civilians being killed as a reprisal for the death of military police or of CPN army personnel. Things are bad and they're only getting worse. Something had to be done."

Aloofi

March 18th, 2003, 03:34 PM

http://graphics.theonion.com/pics_3809/gulf_war_2.jpg

WASHINGTON, DC�At a Pentagon press conference Monday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld touted the military's upcoming Gulf War II: The Vengeance as "even better than the original."

Above: Donald Rumsfeld debriefs reporters on the upcoming Gulf War sequel, scheduled to hit Iraq March 22.
"If you thought the first one was good, just wait until you see the sequel," Rumsfeld said of Gulf War II, scheduled to hit Iraqi theaters of operation March 22. "In the original, as you no doubt know, we defeat Saddam Hussein, only to let him slip away at the very end. This time, we're going back in to take out the trash."

Rumsfeld said the soon-to-be-unleashed war will feature special effects beyond anything seen in the original.

"Gulf War I was done 11 years ago, and war-making technology has advanced tremendously since then," Rumsfeld said. "From the guns to the planes to the missile-guidance systems, what you'll see in this one puts the original Gulf War to shame."

"The budget for Gulf War II: The Vengeance is somewhere in the neighborhood of $85 billion," Rumsfeld continued. "And every penny of it is up there on your screen."

Waged in 1991 at a cost of $61 billion, the first Gulf War was a major hit, making household names out of stars Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf, and Wolf Blitzer. Asked who would star in the sequel, General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was coy.

"I don't want to give away too much, but let's just say you're likely to see a few familiar faces pop up," Myers said. "I will say that the son of one of the key characters in the first one, back then just a boy, is now all grown up and ready to take his rightful place at the head of the alliance."

http://graphics.theonion.com/pics_3809/gulf_war_2_jump.jpg

Myers did confirm that the plot revolves around the Rebel forces' efforts to capture arch-nemesis Hussein, whom they believe is building a weapon of mass destruction somewhere deep within the mysterious and forbidding No-Fly Zone.

Above: A publicity still from Gulf War II.
"Obviously, Saddam will be back," Myers said. "He's the perfect villain: ruthless, efficient, and sinister. It would be an affront to all the fans not to include him. Beyond that, what's going to happen is anybody's guess. One thing, though, is guaranteed: We're going to have more action, more danger, and definitely more kill power than the first time around."

"We've already started preliminary shooting," Myers said, "and so far, what we've got is unbelievable."

In addition to a major PR push, Gulf War II will be accompanied by a major merchandising campaign. Pentagon has secured the commitment of Topps for a series of cards supporting the effort. It has also brokered a first-look deal with CNN, guaranteeing the network full access to the front lines, as well as first crack at interviewing the men and women behind the scenes. The Pentagon has also signed Dan Rather to a two-cry deal.

In the 11 years since the original Gulf War, few conflicts have come close to matching the level of support and press attention generated by that operation.

"We were disappointed by our numbers in Bosnia," Rumsfeld said. "That particular conflict played primarily to an art-house crowd. Your mainstream audiences didn't connect with the complexities of the centuries-old ethnic clash you had going there. But this time, we feel we've got something very accessible that will play in Peoria. I mean, how can you go wrong with an 'Axis of Evil'?"

Though Gulf War II does not open fire for another two weeks, it has screened for select audiences in Los Angeles. Ain't It Cool News, the popular website run by Harry Knowles, recently leaked an advance review of the conflict.

"The battle sequences are even better than Black Hawk Down," Knowles wrote. "And Afghan leader Hamid Karzai, while only given a little action, exudes a Tarantino cool."

Pentagon officials, meanwhile, are already thinking about a third installment.

"There's no reason this Iraq thing can't be a franchise for us like those wars with Germany or the Communists used to be," Rumsfeld said. "The public loves it, the soldiers love it, the media love it. And even if the U.S. wins at the end of the second one, there are still plenty of possibilities for a third: Saddam could be destroyed, only to be replaced by an even greater evil. Then, of course, there's the prequel set in the Stone Age, the era we bomb Iraq back to at the end of the third one. As far as we're concerned, this thing is just getting started."

DavidG

March 18th, 2003, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:

can america deliver a good peace.
Good question. I guess the obvious answer would be to see what's happening in Afghanistan. I attempted to do this briefly the other day but it was tough to find. I guess it's not really news worthy now.

dogscoff

March 18th, 2003, 04:22 PM

I guess the obvious answer would be to see what's happening in Afghanistan. I attempted to do this briefly the other day but it was tough to find. I guess it's not really news worthy now.
I found this:

http://specials.politinfo.com/Latest_Specials/Afghanistan_War_and_Rebuilding/afghanistan_war_and_rebuilding.html

haven't really looked through it but it looks about right.

tesco samoa

March 18th, 2003, 06:01 PM

classic cnn headline

World braces as deadline looms
Terror alert level raised; March Madness may be delayed

jimbob

March 18th, 2003, 06:10 PM

Aloofi:

Those are amazing "pictures". Did you do them yourself? Just Adobe with a lot of tender loving care? I can't believe how seamless the G.I. dubbya looks, even the right shadows and everything!

Thermodyne

March 18th, 2003, 06:32 PM

�Can America deliver a good peace?� Very good question Tesco. But one that only time can answer. The only thing we can do is look at history, and hope to develop a scale against which to measure the chances.

A quick look brings a few prime indicators to light; economic development seems to be a good marker. Developed countries recover more quickly than undeveloped ones. Also the Education of the population seems to have some importance. On the other hand, religious hatred and tribalism seem to prevent recovery and the building of nations that have a sound respect for basic human rights.

Iraq has a good level of education, along with a fair level of industrial development. But they also suffer from religious zealots and tribalism. The trump card is oil. With oil they can finance a strong recovery, and make their first gains in the area of living standards for the common man. Happy people are more apt to work for the stabilization of the government, rather than against it. I think that the model that was used in Japan can be adapted to work in Iraq. Take away the ego of one man, and it was a very good plan.

I think Iraq must remain as one state; to partition it would destabilize the region. Also instead of worrying about which sect will have power, they should form a coalition right from the start. All Iraqi�s not actually in positions of great authority should have amnesty. And any that are going to be punished, should receive it swiftly. The one compelling rule should be to always move forward. This of course rules out much involvement by the UN. They take years to do what can be done in weeks.

Personally, I think that the current Army of Iraq should be retained in a reformed entity. They will be well suited for maintaining order, US troops will not. Also, US forces should be withdrawn to specific bases ASAP. There should be a strong presence, but not a highly visible one. The Iraqi people need to build their own government based on acceptable standards already set by the UN.

Lastly, I do believe that America and her allies should create a PAX Americana/Allies in Iraq. Those who were not against Saddam should be frozen out of the post war revitalization of Iraq. It is time for the west to abandon the colonial ideas and aging ways of empire. We must accept the new nations as equals, not clients.

As a side bar I would like to address the �what about all the other places and other dictators� point that has been brought up. Three things determine the level of our involvement. Strategic considerations, spheres of influence, and public opinion. Let�s take Nepal for example. The west could have taken the Chicoms to task and expelled them from Nepal. But at what cost? Nepal would be rubble, and in all likelihood, several cities would be people free zones right now. Glassed over by fusion fires. Would that have served the people of Nepal? I don�t think so. Also, history tells us that they are a breakaway republic that was part of China in the past. Who has the valid claim? Does a successful revolt guarantee unchallenged independence? How for back do we apply modern law? An awful lot of questions and danger to be found in this problem, and for what gain? Unless Nepal finds linkage to another world problem, they will remain part of China so long as the Chicoms choose to hold them.

The point here is that each situation has its own set of risks and benefits, that in and of themselves have no linkage. To merely try to use their weight in numbers as a plank in your position has very little merit. It is not unlike the kid, who when caught red handed, rats out his peers in an effort to lesson the punishment that is about to be applied. To say that the US is wrong for only addressing one of the world�s problems is not sporting. The fact is, that we are addressing several of them at this time, who will step forward and address another? France? Belgium? Canada? There are plenty to go around. And 50 years of talking has not found a solution yet.

Atrocities

March 18th, 2003, 06:50 PM

Who here supports the President? I do, and why I do is simple. I feel that if we leave Saddam alone he will continue his efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction. That in turn he would give or sell these weapons to others terrorist along with training his own terrorist to use them against us.

That if he obtained the ability, then built a nuke, that he would use the device to blackmail the rest of the world into letting him do as he pleased in the middle east.

He has already stated many times that he has no weapons of mass destruction, yet he just gave the order to his troops to arm weapons with chemical warheads, and boasted that if the Americans invade Bagdad, he would kill all the people rather than allow them to live without him.

Ask yourself what he ment by that? How would he commit mass extermination of his own people? Ya he has no weapons of mass destruction, and Bill Clinton did not have sex with the fat chick either.

tesco samoa

March 18th, 2003, 06:57 PM

I believe that Robin Cook's resignation speech should be read. I post it here.

Robin Cook's resignation speech:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm

This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House
from the back benches. I must confess that I had forgotten how much
better the view is from here.

None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than
the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving
this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more
enjoyable, Mr Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with
you. It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House
to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded
by a press interview.

On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press
interview has been given before this statement. I have chosen to
address the House first on why I cannot support a war without
international agreement or domestic support.

The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the
Labour party in my lifetime.

I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I
hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy
with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this
crisis to displace him. I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime
minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution.

I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign
secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within
the Security Council.

But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it
was to succeed.

Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting
a second resolution was of no importance.

France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary
in recent days. It is not France alone that wants more time for
inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants
more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even
the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution.

We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international
hostility is all the result of President Chirac.

The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war
without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are
a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not
the Security Council.

To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.

Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition
against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever
have imagined possible.

History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that
led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition. The
US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower. Our
interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by
multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.

Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are
weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in
stalemate.

Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be
fired. I have heard some parallels between military action in these
circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There
was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the
action that we took in Kosovo. It was supported by NATO; it was
supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single
one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were
our active allies.

It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case
that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security
Council as the Last hope of demonstrating international agreement.
The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to
an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis.

Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the
international community nor the British public is persuaded that
there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in
Iraq. The threshold for war should always be high.

None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the
forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing
campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties
will be numbered at least in the thousands.

I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit
themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they
all come back. I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and
avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war
support our troops.

It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an
alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk. Nor
is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of
not having an alternative strategy.

For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the
western strategy of containment. Over the past decade that strategy
destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's
nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range
missiles programmes.

Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the
time of the Last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq's
military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its
invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are
so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be
over in a few days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam
is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim
that he is a threat. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass
destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a
credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city
target.

It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical
munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies
sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved
chemical and munitions factories. Why is it now so urgent that we
should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has
been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create? Why is it
necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to
complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN
inspectors?

Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that
the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within
months. I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12
years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is
exhausted. Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called
on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of
Israel to comply.

I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has
given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the
middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice
throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the
allies of the US and another rule for the rest. Nor is our
credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington
are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in
Iraq.

That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing
progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with
consternation: it reduces the case for war.

What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion
that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al
Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British
troops. The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the
respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the
British people.

On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is
sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they
are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.
They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that
they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US
Administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy
at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a
broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of
our traditional allies.

From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of
the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain
should go to war. It has been a favourite theme of commentators that
this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics.
Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this
House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither
international agreement nor domestic support.

I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military
action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and
with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.

tesco samoa

March 18th, 2003, 07:14 PM

John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign Languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America�s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has �oderint dum metuant� really become our motto?

I urge you to listen to America�s friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America�s ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.

Thermodyne

March 18th, 2003, 07:20 PM

As to Mr. Cooks position. Nice speech, but he was never for the war. And on top of that, he has a rather large axe to grind against the PM. http://www.observer.co.uk/2001review/story/0,1590,617634,00.html
At best he had reached his high water mark. At worst, he was on the way out.

Mephisto

March 18th, 2003, 07:25 PM

A very good speech indeed. Interesting that he points out the same problems others have done on this thread...

tbontob

March 18th, 2003, 07:26 PM

Maybe the following has been discussed...I haven't read everything in this thread.

Bush does not strike me as a warmonger. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Yet he insists on going to war when the inspections have been giving some results.

What is going on?

One aspect and maybe the most important one is the cost.

The U.S.A. has incurred enormous costs in outfitting and sending its forces to Iraq.

If they did not do so, I doubt Iraq would have permitted the inspections.

A delay would mean the US of A would face continuing costs which would be borne by its own citizens. Not a popular choice for a president.

To stop the hemorrage, the U.S.A. would have to withdraw its troops. If the president deemed it necessary to send the troops over at a later date, he would face severe criticism about the double expense.

Another aspect of the conflict. Saddam is seen as figuratively thumbing his nose at the U.N. and it's resolutions. I feel the U.S.A. has taken this somewhat personally.

If so, it contributes to the unwillingness of the U.S. of A. to back down. There is a need to teach Saddam a lesson about U.S. resolve. It will also serve as a lesson to any nation who is contemplating to defy it in the future.

Fear and coertion is not a good basis for future relations. But this seems to be the path the U.S. of A. has chosen.

Just some thought to provoke a conversation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Thermodyne

March 18th, 2003, 07:32 PM

Kiesling I know of, he is a well known, well to do mal-content. He is a recipient of the Rivkin award, given for decent against the policies of the state department. I applaud him for making a demonstration of his feelings on the subject. But I also condemn him for using the moment to add sensationalism to his resignation. I would suggest that his job was not to decide policy, but to work towards the goals of achieving the policies already in place. Perhaps he should run for a seat in the house, where his voice, if added to a majority of others, would help set policy. I respect people for going to bat for what they think is right, but I have no respect for those who resign when other fail to abide by their point of view.

Atrocities

March 18th, 2003, 08:04 PM

Why Bush is insisting on going to war is because Saddam has been trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. He has hidden these weapons from the UN, and only when the Inspectors "find" some does he then come out and say, "oh they were disclosed." Yet they were not.

Saddam has every intention to get a nuke bomb. If he were allowed to do so, he would use it to black mail the rest of the world, including his neighbors into allowing him to do as he pleased in the Middle East. HE WOULD USE IT on Israel. He has offered to give Terrorist biological and chemical weapons before. Some have accepted and thank God have been stopped. You don't hear or read about them because the information pipeline must be preserved.

Bush has the intelligence reports, the proof, and above all else, the smoking gun to justify the action he has order taken. France, Germany, and Russia have huge stakes in IRAQ, and don't want to loose those investments. That is understandable however regrettable.

China just likes to cause the US heartache. Remember, they paid for a Democrat President, but got a Republican instead.

Saddam is a man who will continue to seek weapons of mass destruction. He is a man who would give, or sell these weapons to people who would use them in terrorist attacks.

The fact that so many people are protesting against a war only shows how little they value human life. They don't want the war because of what might happen to the IRAQ people. Saddam has already stated that he would kill all of his people rather than allow them to live without him.

That shows how sick of a man he really is.

He is a liar, killer, mass murder, rapist, etc, yet these people want to keep him in power. Where were these people when Saddam was committing genocide against people of his society? Where were they when he invaded Iran and then later Kuwait? They were sitting in the rafters waiting for the US to get involved so they could pounce upon us like crazed followers of Satan.

These people are fools to believe that Saddam is a nice man. These are the people who file billion dollar lawsuits after a jet crashes because a terrorist was able to take control of it and slam it into a building. These are the people who protest against war and the treatment prisoners at a military base, but turn their backs on the suffering of the people who have to live under or with those who commit terrorist action and other atrocities against their own people.

Where the hell were these fricking protesters when the Taliban was killing innocent people and ordering the mass extermination of non-believers? Where were they when Alkida (sp) was planning to kill 3k + Americans? Where in the hell were they when Saddam butchered his own people as a fricking test to see if his newest chemical bombs worked?

I will tell you were they were, sitting back with their cell phones drinking a latt� and laughing at the misfortunes of those people. They couldn't give a rats *** about them, and now that someone is finally fed up with it, and has taken a leadership role to end some of this senseless violence, the come out of the fricking wood work like maggot bugs and swarm those who would free an oppressed people in support of a mass murder.

The below mentioned politicians are nothing more than political game players who out for themselves and NOTHING more. People believe that a war in Iraq is bad, yet they can live with the knowledge that Saddam, a mass murder, is in control. They can live with the fact that this insane man wants nuclear power? They can live with the fact that he is an avid supporter of suicide bomber, and they believe that he posses no threat to our security given the fact that he wants nuclear weapons? Come on!

Where will these idiots be when one of these weapons of mass destruction is set off as a terrorist weapon? Where will they be then? Sitting in the dark waiting for the US to respond once again, so they can protest one more time.

[ March 18, 2003, 18:05: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

tesco samoa

March 18th, 2003, 08:08 PM

I think your missing the overall point here.

America will win the war. But they will not resolve the mistrust and resentment of American foreign policy. The world does not want to live in a world shaped by the US.

Only in one country does the majority of the people support this war. Israel.

That is it.

Just remember when countries are the economic and military might of the world. The world joins against them.

The next election in the US should be about Multilateral Alliances vs American Imperium.
I hope that a Roosevelt , Truman or Marshall spirit prevails.

Aloofi

March 18th, 2003, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by jimbob:
Aloofi:

Those are amazing "pictures". Did you do them yourself? Just Adobe with a lot of tender loving care? I can't believe how seamless the G.I. dubbya looks, even the right shadows and everything!Yeah right, I wish I could do something like that http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .
Those pictures were done by the guys at the onion.
They have become real masters in picture making http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Atrocities

March 18th, 2003, 08:25 PM

In a hundred years, non of this will matter.

And for the record, it is a war against Saddam (Terrorism), not a war against Iraq(Oppressed people).

[ March 18, 2003, 18:27: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Aloofi

March 18th, 2003, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
In a hundred years, non of this will matter.

.But it will in a hundred hours...... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Mephisto

March 18th, 2003, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
In a hundred years, non of this will matter.Then the war is unjustified. Either it changes something fundamental or it does not and in this case we don't need it. I fear that the end result is no where near what Bush dreams of and that it will indeed matters in 100 years...

oleg

March 18th, 2003, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
In a hundred years, non of this will matter.

And for the record, it is a war against Saddam (Terrorism), not a war against Iraq(Oppressed people).Excuse me, but what are the proofs of links between Irag and terrorism ? I did not hear of any. So far, Mister Bush and members of his administration presnted no evidence, just unfounded accusations of alleged links.

I hate to say this, but Bush seems to embrase the old Gebbels' maxim: "if you want people to believe in lies, make lies extrodianary!" (sorry, I may misquote).

Aloofi

March 18th, 2003, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Mephisto:
. I fear that the end result is no where near what Bush dreams of and that it will indeed matters in 100 years...I agree. Worst case scenario Iraq really have nukes, give a couple to Al Qaeda, they detonate one in an american city, and its game over for the US.
And really don't like the idea of a world without the US keeping China, NK, Iran and the others back in line, because if it were for the EU Pakistan and India would have had radiated borders long ago.

primitive

March 18th, 2003, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
In a hundred years, non of this will matter.

And for the record, it is a war against Saddam (Terrorism), not a war against Iraq(Oppressed people).I hope You are right, but I fear you are wrong.

In a hundred Years Saddam and the Iraq war will only be a footnote in history.

I am afraid 2003 will be remembered as the year USA, as the worlds only superpower, stept aside from the path of unity and cooperation, and decided they was better off alone. But I hope I am wrong.

I am afraid 2003 will be remembered as the year when the new frontlines was drawn, when the new cold war started. Not between East and West, but between USA (and a few close friends) and the rest of the world. But I hope I am wrong.

The damage done to USA's international relations by singlehandedly take matters in their own hand, will take years and years of carefull diplomacy too undo. I hope GWB is wise enough to do it. But I fear he is not.

thorfrog

March 18th, 2003, 11:07 PM

Hey does anyone remember the League of Nations? The precusor to the United Nations. It proved to be an all talk no action group. Their failer lead to WW2. Today the United Nations is not so different. It is no suprize that the French and Russians are against this war in Iraq? They have economic deals that might fall apart. They have the most to lose. They could care less that Sadam is murdering his own people provided France gets paid.

Iraq has been building weapons of mass destruction for over 20 years. Anyone wonder why they tried to build a nuke reactor in the 80's. That wasn't for power. They wanted the bomb. Now imagine them having nukes when the Gulf War started.

The world has given Iraq over 12 years to comply. In that time they rebuilt their forces and chem/bio weapons. Yep VX gas. I'd say this stuff is worse then a nuke. It breaks just about every treaty out there. But what else changed? Terror strategies changed. 9/11 woke the US up. These rogue states that support these terror Groups now have a way to get at America. And countries like Iraq can support them and play dumb. So now the US has to strike. If we don't it only encourages these terror strikes. We took down Afganistan because of this. Iraq is next.

I say it was a mistake for Allies to not invade Iraq when they had the chance in 1991. It may have stablized the whole region. The biggest mistake of the Bush Sr Presidency.

Mephisto

March 18th, 2003, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
... because if it were for the EU Pakistan and India would have had radiated borders long ago.I wonder were you get your EU news from?

Aloofi

March 18th, 2003, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Mephisto:
I wonder were you get your EU news from?What i meant was that the EU doesn't have the power or the will to hold the bad guys back.
I know that the EU doesn't want a Pakistani/Hindi war.

[ March 18, 2003, 21:24: Message edited by: Aloofi ]

Atrocities

March 18th, 2003, 11:21 PM

I am afraid 2003 will be remembered as the year USA, as the worlds only superpower, stept aside from the path of unity and cooperation, and decided they was better off alone. But I hope I am wrong. And if we do nothing, in a hundred years history would report that the US could have stopped one of the worst terrorist attacks in world history and failed.

No one knows for certain what is right and wrong in this. There are people who love to protest just for the sake of protesting. They are nothing more than "15" minute fame seekers who could not get on reality tv show.

Before you protest something, you should be informed, and they are not.

No one wants a war, and Saddam has been given over 12 years to prevent one. How much longer should we wait? Should we wait until he gives a biological weapon to some suicide terrorist group who then use it to kill millions? Or should we just wait until he develops a nuke and blows one of his neighbors to hell?

Remember, the choice to fight is Saddams. He has had ample time to come clean. Hell he has even had time to leave Iraq and has instead elected to remain behind and make threats that he will use the very weapons of mass destruction that he claims he does not have against his own people to insure that they die rather than live without him.

Sure lets just leave him alone, I am sure he won't do anything that will hurt people.

Atrocities

March 18th, 2003, 11:23 PM

I should also point out that if people feel that Saddam is a good man, they should go live in his country for a year. If they protest there, they would simply be shot without ever getting a sound bite on the local news. Correction, they would get a report, a report annoucing their deaths as traitors to Saddam.

Oleg, look at his track record. Look at what Saddam has done in the past to his own people. Has Bush committed mas murder in order to test out a biological weapon? No, he has not. Saddam's connection to terrorism is that he has funded many families of suicide bombers. He has given money to other terrorist organizations and even had terrorist training camps in Iraq. So ya, he connected alright, right at the hip.

If he has the technology to use, he WILL use it. He has proven this. What has Bush and many others worried is that he had given biological weapons away to terrorist before. They were stopped.

Once the conflict starts, and it has been shown that Saddam has been sitting on these weapons all the while denying they exist, then perhaps people will understand the true danger he poses.

Its not the country with 50 nukes I am afraid of, its the dumbass with one that has be freaked out.

And biological weapons make nukes look like firecrakers. AND SADDAM has that technology. Remember what he did to the Kurds and to the Iranians?

[ March 18, 2003, 21:31: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

tesco samoa

March 18th, 2003, 11:28 PM

atomannj for 30 years Isreal has not left the occupied terrorties. That is a UN resolution.

Yes France and Russia are against it. That does not answer why most of the world is against it as well. Mexico, Latin America, Canada are against it.

And that is a pile of bull saying that France does not care he is murdering his own people... No one has cared.

So when is your war on terror going to bomb Ireland. Sinn Fenn is in Dublin I believe... Why not bomb Cork, Dublin etc...

Why not start with the CIA head quaters.

Yes their strong so we should attack. But lets attack now when their weak. We will find out over the next week what weapons they have. Will we find out the truth. I doubt it.

It took a web of lies to get us this far. Why stop now.

Your own country supports terror. Go look it up. IRA recieves most of its support from Eastern United States. Contra's , Panama, Trujillo , Somoza , Marcos , Duvalier. Perhaps it is the time to question why your country is going down this direction and why it is dragging the rest of the world with it. ( just to give it an 80's feel )

Baron Munchausen

March 18th, 2003, 11:40 PM

Oh, I think it will matter in a hundred years. The USA has set a precedent for extending 'right to self-defense' way beyond imminent threat into mere 'potential' threat. Many other dictators who don't happen to be on the public radar at the moment will be quite pleased to use this precedent to attack whomever they please -- after checking with the US to make sure it's ok with them, of course. We've now returned to a world of 'might makes right' that was supposedly ended in the 20th century, and we will be paying the consequences for a long time to come. Who knows, in a hundred years we might see President P. D. Q. Bush deposed by the Chinese-led coalition to free the USA. We will not be the biggest bully on the block forever. But I'm sure they'll promise to minimize civilian casualties and rebuild the smashed infrastructure. And cut themselves in for control of huge tracts of US farmland to feed themselves.

[ March 18, 2003, 21:42: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Atrocities

March 18th, 2003, 11:43 PM

So when is your war on terror going to bomb Ireland. Sinn Fenn is in Dublin I believe... Why not bomb Cork, Dublin etc... Do they have the ability to kill a million or more people with biological weapons? Do they or have they ever sought to use a nuclear weapon as a terrorist tool? Do they have active plans on using any weapon of mass destruction against any one other than the English? Nope = no risk threat to the rest of the world. Englands problem. (And if memory serves, they are fighting for indepence or something like that too.)

Why not start with the CIA head quaters. Why not start with MI6, or the Russian Secret Service? There is really NO proof that the CIA had done anything like what Alkida, Saddam, or even the Taliban have done. None.

Yes their strong so we should attack. But lets attack now when their weak. We will find out over the next week what weapons they have. Will we find out the truth. I doubt it.People doubt the truth will ever be told. So no matter what truth is told, people will always doubt it. So why tell the turth? YourPeoples minds are already made up. Any truth is just another CIA plot.

It took a web of lies to get us this far. Why stop now.I can not believe that you said this. Do you not believe that Saddam has used biological and chemical weapons before? Do you not believe that he has mass produce these weapons. WHY IN GOD NAME WOULD he want such weapons. Ask yourself that. SIMPLE, to repeat his history, and that is to USE THEM ON HIS ENEMIES!!!!! And the Last fricking time I looked, he consider us, and you, his enemy!!!!!

Your own country supports terror. Go look it up. IRA recieves most of its support from Eastern United States. Contra's , Panama, Trujillo , Somoza , Marcos , Duvalier. Perhaps it is the time to question why your country is going down this direction and why it is dragging the rest of the world with it. ( just to give it an 80's feel )Um, our government does not support them. Nor does our government give them money. There are poeple here in the US, and all over the world mind you that actively support terrorism. Because there are these kind of sick people around does not mean that the US government supports them.

[ March 18, 2003, 21:47: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Thermodyne

March 18th, 2003, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
atomannj for 30 years Isreal has not left the occupied terrorties. That is a UN resolution.

Yes France and Russia are against it. That does not answer why most of the world is against it as well. Mexico, Latin America, Canada are against it.

And that is a pile of bull saying that France does not care he is murdering his own people... No one has cared.

So when is your war on terror going to bomb Ireland. Sinn Fenn is in Dublin I believe... Why not bomb Cork, Dublin etc...

Why not start with the CIA head quaters.

Yes their strong so we should attack. But lets attack now when their weak. We will find out over the next week what weapons they have. Will we find out the truth. I doubt it.

It took a web of lies to get us this far. Why stop now.

Your own country supports terror. Go look it up. IRA recieves most of its support from Eastern United States. Contra's , Panama, Trujillo , Somoza , Marcos , Duvalier. Perhaps it is the time to question why your country is going down this direction and why it is dragging the rest of the world with it. ( just to give it an 80's feel )Cool
Let�s free Ireland next, a wee little bit of home rule http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif then we move on to free the Scotts, paint our faces blue and showem owur arses. After that we might settle that little difference the canuks have, Brits to the left and Frogs to the right. Perhaps a little piece in the north for the original owners. And I think a few people in France and Spain would like to get in line. By the time we carve out a country for everyone that wants one, I think we will need a bigger UN. But of course, every coin has two sides, some of these people might object.

Atrocities

March 18th, 2003, 11:50 PM

Baron Munchausen I am LOL. China freeing Americans, LOL. They bought and paid for Clinton, and if they can do that, why invade?

Thermodyne

March 18th, 2003, 11:56 PM

I am watching an Iraqi gentleman on CNN. To hear him talk, the world is on the side of Iraq. Well I�m a reasonable man, who will stand with Iraq? Who is willing to step in and offer them aid? Talk is cheap! I must note that while Abduri looked very mad, his aids had a different look on their faces.

Atrocities

March 18th, 2003, 11:58 PM

I am sorry, but I fail to understand why people would not want Saddam removed. Here is a man who has actively used biological and chemical weapons against his own people, and has an active program to mass produce them.

Here is a man who funds suicide bombers and has hosted terrorist training camps in his own DICRTORIALLY control country.

Here is man that in Last 23 years has attempted to invade two of his neighbors.

Here is man that has openly stated that he has no objection to selling or giving away biological weapons to Terrorist.

Why in gods name would you not want him removed following what had happened on 9-11?

If we had known that Alkida (sp) could do what they did prior to 9-11, we would have taken issue with them. The problem is, Clinton did know, and he chose to sit on his arse and do nothing THUS inviting the attack.

Bush and many others know that Saddam will give away his weapons of mass destruction to terrorist who will in turn use them on innocent people. If he does not act now what will that invite?

If Bush had foreknowledge of Alkida's plan for 9 - 11, and went into Afghanistan and took them out in a preemptive strike, he would have been labeled a warmonger. Oh wait, isn't that exactly what he is doing now? Going into Iraq to PREVENT another f***ing 9-11?

And the worlds say no, what you are doing is wrong. You should wait until after they kill a million or more Americans before you take action. No thanks; I would rather have my family alive then dead.

I ask myself why is the world against this, and the answer is simple. It is the "in" thing to do right now, hate those who are dying to keep you from being murdered. It is the oldest song in the book. You hate the ones who care the most about you. It deeply sickens me to think that American's have, are, and will die for arseholes like the weak and pathetic French.

Germany, well they have an unknown agenda that frankly scares the hell out of me. Russia, well Russia is doing it because the Putnoff (sp) wants to look tough to his people standing up againt the big bad Eagle. Um didn't the Soviet Union crumble? And if so, why in the hell is he trying to put it back together?

As for the rest of the world? They want money to support us. It is that simple. Pay up or we will opose you. Nothing more than greedy dogs begging for dinner table scraps.

[ March 18, 2003, 22:08: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Baron Munchausen

March 19th, 2003, 12:15 AM

primitive

March 19th, 2003, 12:17 AM

Atrocities:
It's very hard to write something here without someone accusing me of supporting Saddam. I do not, I think he is scum and deserve everything that comes to him (But USA should not take it on by themself to act as prosecutor, judge and excecutor).

But I fail to see any connection between what happened 9/11 and Saddams weapons of mass destruction.
9/11 was done by 50 suicidal idiots armed with very low tech weapons (pLastic knives ?), on a budget of perhaps 100 K $.
Fundamentalist muslems don't support the US attacking Saddam (not because they love Saddam, but because they hate USA more).
Taking out Saddam will only increase the number of idiots willing to do such suicide missions, and the small sum of money needed will always be available.

Fyron

March 19th, 2003, 12:22 AM

(But USA should not take it on by themself to act as prosecutor, judge and excecutor).The goal is to arrest Saddam and take him to trial. But, he will probably pull a Hitler before we get there.

Thermodyne

March 19th, 2003, 12:38 AM

Linkage

___________________________________

The Wall Street Journal
AT WAR
The Baluch Connection
Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tied to Baghdad?
BY LAURIE MYLROIE
Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, is a
Pakistani Baluch. So is Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the 1993 World Trade
Center bombing. In 1995, together with a third Baluch, Abdul Hakam Murad,
the two collaborated in an unsuccessful plot to bomb 12 U.S. airplanes.
Years later, as head of al Qaeda's military committee, Mohammed reportedly
planned the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings, as well as the bombing of the USS
Cole in 2000.

Why should the Baluch seek to kill Americans? Sunni Muslims, they live in
the desert regions of eastern Iran and western Pakistan. The U.S. has little
to do with them; there is no evident motive for this murderous obsession.
The Baluch do, however, have longstanding ties to Iraqi intelligence,
reflecting their militant opposition to the Shiite regime in Tehran. Wafiq
Samarrai, former chief of Iraqi military intelligence, explains that Iraqi
intelligence worked with the Baluch during the Iran-Iraq war. According to
Mr. Samarrai, Iraqi intelligence has well-established contacts with the
Baluch in both Iran and Pakistan.

Mohammed, Yousef and Murad, supposedly born and raised in Kuwait, are part
of a tight circle. Mohammed is said to be Yousef's maternal uncle; Murad is
supposed to be Yousef's childhood friend. And U.S. authorities have
identified as major al Qaeda figures three other Baluch: two brothers of
Yousef and a cousin. The official position is thus that a single family is
at the center of almost all the major terrorist attacks against U.S. targets
since 1993. The existence of intelligence ties between Iraq and the Baluch
is scarcely noted. Indeed, these Baluch terrorists began attacking the U.S.
long before al Qaeda did.

Notably, this Baluch "family" is from Kuwait. Their identities are based on
documents from Kuwaiti files that predate Kuwait's liberation from Iraqi
occupation, and which are therefore unreliable. While in Kuwait, Iraqi
intelligence could have tampered with files to create false identities (or
"legends") for its agents. So, rather than one family, these terrorists are,
quite plausibly, elements of Iraq's Baluch network, given legends by Iraqi
intelligence.

SOMEONE NAMED Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was born in Kuwait to Pakistani parents
on April 19, 1965. After high school in Kuwait, he enrolled at Chowan
College in North Carolina in January 1984, before transferring to North
Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, where he received his
degree in December 1986. Is the Sept. 11 mastermind the same person as the
student? He need not be. Perhaps the real Mohammed died (possibly during
Iraq's occupation of Kuwait), and a terrorist assumed his identity.

Mohammed should now be just under 38, but the terrorist's arrest photo,
showing graying sideburns and heavy jowls, seems to suggest an older man
(admittedly, a subjective judgment). Yet this question can be pursued more
reliably. Three sets of information exist regarding Mohammed: information
from U.S. sources from the 1980s (INS and college documents, as well as
individuals who may remember him); Kuwaiti documents; and information since
the liberation of Kuwait (from his arrest, the interrogation of other al
Qaeda prisoners, and the investigation into the 1995 plane-bombing plot).

The Kuwaiti documents should be scrutinized for irregularities that suggest
tampering. The information about Mohammed from the '80s needs to be compared
with the information that has emerged since Kuwait's liberation. The
terrorist may prove to be taller (or shorter) than the student.
Interrogators might ask him what he remembers of the colleges he is claimed
to have attended. Acquaintances--like Gaith Faile, who taught Mohammed at
Chowan and who told the Journal, "He wasn't a radical"--should be asked to
provide a positive identification.

Along these lines, Kuwait's file on Yousef is telling. Yousef entered the
U.S. on an Iraqi passport in the name of Ramzi Yousef, but fled on a
passport in the name of Mohammed's supposed nephew, Abdul Basit Karim. But
Kuwait's file on Karim was tampered with. The file should contain copies of
the front pages of his passport, including picture and signature. They are
missing. Extraneous information was inserted--a notation that he and his
family left Kuwait on Aug. 26, 1990, traveling from Kuwait to Iraq, entering
Iran at Salamcheh on their way to Pakistani Baluchistan. But people do not
provide authorities an itinerary when crossing a border. Moreover, there was
no Kuwaiti government then. Iraq occupied Kuwait and would have had to put
that information into the file.

KARIM ATTENDED college in Britain. His teachers there strongly doubted that
their student was the terrorist mastermind. Most notably, Karim was short,
at most 5-foot-8; Yousef is 6 feet tall. Nevertheless, Yousef's fingerprints
are in Karim's file. Probably, the fingerprint card in Karim's file was
switched, the original replaced by one with Yousef's prints on it. James
Fox, who headed the FBI investigation into the 1993 WTC bombing, has been
quoted as affirming that Iraqi involvement was the theory "accepted by most
of the veteran investigators." Pakistani investigators were likewise
convinced that Yousef had close links with the MKO, an anti-Iranian
terrorist group run by Iraq, and conducted a bomb attack in Mashhad, Iran,
in 1994.

U.S. authorities may unravel the story very quickly if they pursue the
question of Mohammed's identity, instead of assuming they know who their
captive really is. As for the larger issue of these murderously
anti-American Baluch, that matter may become clear soon, once U.S. forces
take Baghdad--and take possession of Iraq's intelligence files.

Ms. Mylroie is the author of "The War Against America" (HarperCollins,
2001). A related editorial appears here.

DavidG

March 19th, 2003, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:

So when is your war on terror going to bomb Ireland. Sinn Fenn is in Dublin I believe... Why not bomb Cork, Dublin etc...
I think you've made a lot of good points in this thread but is it really necessary to explain the LARGE differences between Iraq and Ireland??

tesco samoa

March 19th, 2003, 01:40 AM

Of course not my friend.

The differences are understood by myself ( I am from Northern Ireland )and all who read this forum.

But the key word of that sentance was the word 'your'.

Last year the world was becoming united in the war to stop terrorism. That is being tossed away. Rather sad.

That was my point.

Atrocities

March 19th, 2003, 08:17 AM

What you fail to understand, Atrocities, is the concept of INTERNATIONAL LAW. Just because there is currently no offical 'world government' doesn't mean that there is no standard of right and wrong in international affairs. It's not a question of anyone wanting to 'keep Saddam in power' it's a question of the appropriate legal right to attack him. The US is violating all standards of international law in this obsessive quest to depose a tin-horn dictator. Many people who were afraid of Saddam Hussein are now afraid of the US instead. Think about that.
I see, so because those in inforce the international laws fail to do so, we here in America must pay the price. I am afraid that will not do when you try and consult a greiving family after many of their relatives were killed by a terrorist attack that leveled a city or worse, killed a million via a biological weapon. Ya, international law that protects the criminal, and limits the victims right to respond or prevent such an attack is not worth inforcing.

The UN is a joke. It has always been a joke. You should see what countries a scheduled to lead what programs at the UN this year and next. That will surprise you. Libia for example. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The UN members feel that it is OK to leave a man who would develope and sell weapons of mass destruction in a position to do so out of fear that the OIL prices will go to high. That is just sick and wrong. They are afraid to act because they think he is a good guy, no they are afraid to act because they know he is not.

They fear that he already has the means to destroy the oil fields if threatened. The US is fearful of this as well, but has no choice. The time to remove him has come. BEFORE he sells his biological weapons or technology to a terrorist group.

The world is largely for peace, I am for peace, but I am not willing to allow that desire for peace to prevent me from being informed as to why we must remove a dangerous man like Saddam from power.

People who fear the US should. They absolutely should. If they are training, harbering, or planning a terrorist attack against us, we will no longer, or at least until a democrat is elected, turn the other cheek.

This is not a war against the IRAQ people, but a war against thier insaine leadership. A leadership that has promised to kill its own people rather than allowing them to live without it.

And the UN would stand by. Hey wait, that is what the UN does well doesn't it, just stand by.

If I was Ted Turner, I would tell the UN to take a hike on that Billion he promised them. They are not worth the investment.

[ March 19, 2003, 06:19: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Atrocities

March 19th, 2003, 08:30 AM

But I fail to see any connection between what happened 9/11 and Saddams weapons of mass destruction. Ok I will attempt to explain.

You are correct, that 9-11 was masterminded by a bunch of sick fanatical religious fools who believed that their way was the only way because they enjoy killing in the name of God.

The connection to 9-11 and Saddam is that he could sell some of biological technology, or worse give it and biological weapons to the above mentioned sick fanatics and then they could really do some damage.

The situation is, he has offered it to them already. He has given a terrorist group biological weapons to be used in a suicide bombing in Israel. The Israeli�s stopped this from happening thank god. They also knew what he was planning to do with his nuclear research and blew up his nuclear plant as a preemptive strike.

The facts are:
1. Saddam want weapons of Mass destruction
2. Saddam is actively researching these weapons.
3. Saddam has already produced biological and chemical weapons.
4. Saddam has already used said deadly weapons upon his own people and the people of IRAN.
5. Saddam has given some away to a terrorist group.
6. Saddam has offered to give a lot a way to any terrorist group.
7. Saddam believes he is Salideen (sp) and it is his duty to free the Arabic people. Free them by any means possible. (He is insane)
8. Saddam is a mass murderer and enjoys using weapons of mass destruction against his own people and his enemies.
9. Saddam has threatened to blow up Iraq oil fields in order to remain in power.
10. Saddam has blown up oil fields and killed millions with chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Atrocities

March 19th, 2003, 08:36 AM

Baron Munchausen

This only adds to the black humor of your ranting about anti-war protestors being 'uninformed' while making ignoramous statements like saying that our government didn't support all those dictators or there's 'no evidence' that the CIA has committed crimes like Al Qaeda. It was the CIA that TRAINED OSAMA BIN LADEN. Not only has the CIA done far worse than Osama, it actually taught him how to do it. You really are making a fool of yourself.
I will assume that you did not intentionally intend to flame me. That your comments were typed in the heat of debate and hold no ill intentions.

And thanks for the spelling tips on Al Qaeda.

[ March 19, 2003, 06:38: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Roanon

March 19th, 2003, 08:57 AM

Just words, guys. The real reason for this war is oil, nothing else. There are dozens of dictators around. USA, like most other countries, is happy to give generous fundings to most of them if they allow free reign of american companies. No talk about murderers and moral concerns here.

This doesn't make the attacks on saddam less reasonable, but it leaves a bitter aftertaste, especially with USA behaving like the biggest bully on the block violating every international law that exists.

People always have two reasons for what they do: one that sounds good, and the real one.

Fyron

March 19th, 2003, 09:18 AM

If only we lived in such a simple fantasy world where oil was the only factor.

Thermodyne

March 19th, 2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Roanon:
Just words, guys. The real reason for this war is oil, nothing else. There are dozens of dictators around. USA, like most other countries, is happy to give generous fundings to most of them if they allow free reign of american companies. No talk about murderers and moral concerns here.

This doesn't make the attacks on saddam less reasonable, but it leaves a bitter aftertaste, especially with USA behaving like the biggest bully on the block violating every international law that exists.

People always have two reasons for what they do: one that sounds good, and the real one.Bold statement! Links please.

Aloofi

March 19th, 2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
I am watching an Iraqi gentleman on CNN. To hear him talk, the world is on the side of Iraq. Well I�m a reasonable man, who will stand with Iraq? Who is willing to step in and offer them aid? Talk is cheap! I must note that while Abduri looked very mad, his aids had a different look on their faces.Good question, who will dare to defy the Empire? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
All those countries opposing the US are nothing but a bunch of pussies. A lot of talk and no action. I guess nobody wanna die defending their ideals.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
This is becoming a show of how low the west have fallen. And to think that once we were warriors, fighting for whatever we thought to be right, doesn't mattter how wrong that was, but we were warriors.

klausD

March 19th, 2003, 04:11 PM

A very heated discussion. I would like to tell you what I think about this situation.

1. American doctrine of world domination, the "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC) is active now. Members and chief designers of the PNAC are Perle, Bolten, Cheyney, Rumsfeld etc. (a "who is who" of the current american government) But this is not a covert operation of some fanatics. Everybody can find the outlined 90page documentation of this program at the internet. Try this link http://www.newamericancentury.org/

2. According to this project which was born 1993 and forced up in the year 2000, america should impose its way of life and kind of freedom and prosperty to the whole world. The enemy countries Irak Iran and S-Korea (the axis of evil) are firstly named in this PNAC document in the year 2000. (2 years before 9/11)
The goal of this policy is to play the leading role in the world in every way (political, economical and military) after the cold war.

3. It seems that the terror attack is a good chance for the PNAC group to publicly justify their american hegemonic goals and philosphy. But I am sure they would have done it anyway (9/11 or not)

4. The first "victim" of this policy is Irak. The second will be next country of the axis of evil. The only chance that this PNAC idea is probably not realized is that the americans vote for another president the next time.

5. Many political leaders in this world know the american goal to lead the world in the 21st century and they dont like it of course. (French, Russia, Germany, China etc.) Thats why they are against it. Nothing else. They are NOT moralic, they just have another politicial doctrine.

6. Regarding Saddam I am sure that its correct from American military to remove this tyrant from his throne. The American government dont have "idealistic" goals (just read the PNAC) and they are now on a very dangerous path but even a fully american controlled Irak is much better than Saddam.

klausD

PS. sorry for my bad english

[ March 19, 2003, 14:11: Message edited by: klausD ]

tbontob

March 19th, 2003, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
Atrocities:
It's very hard to write something here without someone accusing me of supporting Saddam. I do not, I think he is scum and deserve everything that comes to him (But USA should not take it on by themself to act as prosecutor, judge and excecutor).

But I fail to see any connection between what happened 9/11 and Saddams weapons of mass destruction.
9/11 was done by 50 suicidal idiots armed with very low tech weapons (pLastic knives ?), on a budget of perhaps 100 K $.
Fundamentalist muslems don't support the US attacking Saddam (not because they love Saddam, but because they hate USA more).
Taking out Saddam will only increase the number of idiots willing to do such suicide missions, and the small sum of money needed will always be available.Primitive has made some very good points.

I feel the U.S.A has found itself between a rock and a hard place.

It gambled that it would get U.N. support and lost.

It gambled that it would get a number of nations on-board with it and lost.

To not go ahead would mean some loss of face. Some nations may revise their opinion that the U.S. is a paper tiger which couldn't be further from the truth.

Major expense was incurred to no avail if they do not go ahead.

They said they would go ahead with or without a U.N. resolution and now they have to make good on it. I don't think they really reckoned on going it alone, but as a coalition, albeit a small one.

Will the U.S. win the coming battle of Iraq? I feel confident they will.

Will they win handily? Probably.

But they have lost the war of world opinion and confidence.

Since they are committed, IMO their only hope of salvaging what is left of their good name is to win the battle in Iraq, reconstruct Iraq quickly and then get out.

To do it they may have to hand Iraq to the U.N. who will finish the reconstruction.

The fait accompli coupled with proving a lie to those who claim the USA wants Iraq oil will go a long way to restoring world opinion and confidence in the USA.

SgtBigG

March 19th, 2003, 04:58 PM

To not go ahead would mean some loss of face. Some nations may revise their opinion that the U.S. is a paper tiger which couldn't be further from the truth.

Major expense was incurred to no avail if they do not go ahead.

So thousands of people will die to prevent a loss of face and because of the expense incurred? That doesn't seem like a real good reason for war.

Aloofi

March 19th, 2003, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by tbontob:
Will the U.S. win the coming battle of Iraq? I feel confident they will.

Will they win handily? Probably.

.Not so fast, there are several scenarios in which the US lose this war.
a) Iraq takes the war to US territory through Al Qaeda.
b) Baghdadgrad
c) WMD attacks on US territory.
d) North Korea (China) secretly enters the war.
e) The Taliban launches a counter offensive, like the Tet offensive in Viet Nam when EVERYBODY thought that that war was practically over.
f) Iran enters the war.
g) Saddams nuke/bio/gas Tel Aviv and Israel retaliates with one of their 10 City-Busters.
h) Syria enters the war.
i) (reserved for unlooked for complications)

There are a zillion examples in history when a clear cut campaign went down the hill.

C

Aloofi

March 19th, 2003, 05:12 PM

Click on the link below to play an strategy game about a possible scenario for the "Gulf War II" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Gulf War II (http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml)

.

Krsqk

March 19th, 2003, 05:17 PM

I feel the U.S.A has found itself between a rock and a hard place.

It gambled that it would get U.N. support and lost.No, it was more like giving the UN a chance to save face and enforce its own demands.

It gambled that it would get a number of nations on-board with it and lost.
-snip-
They said they would go ahead with or without a U.N. resolution and now they have to make good on it. I don't think they really reckoned on going it alone, but as a coalition, albeit a small one.They have a coalition, even if it is a small one. Something like 45 nations.

To not go ahead would mean some loss of face. Some nations may revise their opinion that the U.S. is a paper tiger which couldn't be further from the truth.To not go ahead would mean the US's word would be relegated to the same worth as the UN's word--worthless. It's meaningless to use the threat of force if you're not willing to make good on it.

Major expense was incurred to no avail if they do not go ahead.Major expense would have already been incurred if Saddam had gone ahead and done what was demanded months ago. Threatening force still costs a significant portion of what using force does. Still, having gotten to this point, not going in would be a huge misuse of our funds.

Will the U.S. win the coming battle of Iraq? I feel confident they will.

Will they win handily? Probably.

But they have lost the war of world opinion and confidence.This is the same world which gives out Nobel Peace Prizes for saying "Shape up or else we'll tell you to shape up again!"--it'd be nice if they liked us, but it's not really vital.

Since they are committed, IMO their only hope of salvaging what is left of their good name is to win the battle in Iraq, reconstruct Iraq quickly and then get out.Or to uncover evidence of French and German complicity in Iraq's lack of cooperation and/or participation in oil/weapons transactions beyond what is allowed under sanctions.

To do it they may have to hand Iraq to the U.N. who will finish the reconstruction.Heaven forbid the UN gets its hands on Iraq. They've done such a great job in Bosnia, and Rwanda, and everywhere else they've gone. To top it off, they'll drag out the process indefinitely. Who's going to provide the peacekeeping troops and the money for the next 20 years? The US. If we're going to fund this and protect this, we might as well be in charge of it.

The fait accompli coupled with proving a lie to those who claim the USA wants Iraq oil will go a long way to restoring world opinion and confidence in the USA.Sure, but again, their opinion is just an opinion. They'll hate us if we go in, and they'll laugh at us and hate us if we don't. The next time someone threatens them, they'll be more than happy for us to come help them out.

SgtBigG

March 19th, 2003, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tbontob:
Will the U.S. win the coming battle of Iraq? I feel confident they will.

Will they win handily? Probably.

.Not so fast, there are several scenarios in which the US lose this war.
a) Iraq takes the war to US territory through Al Qaeda.
b) Baghdadgrad
c) WMD attacks on US territory.
d) North Korea (China) secretly enters the war.
e) The Taliban launches a counter offensive, like the Tet offensive in Viet Nam when EVERYBODY thought that that war was practically over.
f) Iran enters the war.
g) Saddams nuke/bio/gas Tel Aviv and Israel retaliates with one of their 10 City-Busters.
h) Syria enters the war.
i) (reserved for unlooked for complications)

There are a zillion examples in history when a clear cut campaign went down the hill.

C<hr /></blockquote>I have to disagree -

a) Al Qaeda and Iraq are seperate, Al Qaeda may attack the US but that is seperate from the war with Iraq.

c) Iraq does not have the ability to attack the US with WMD. It's possible that terrorists in the employ of Iraq could use WMD.

d) or the EEE. It's about as likely.

e) The Taliban are in a seperate war.

f) Iran and Iraq hate each other. Iraq used chemical weapons on Iran during their war in the early '80s.

h) see d above.

Even if any of these things happened the US would not lose the war, it would just be prolonged.

i) that's the one to watch out for.

G

Baron Munchausen

March 19th, 2003, 05:38 PM

I wonder why all these lists of possible consequences of the war on Iraq have completely skipped over the most likely. Isn't it fairly obvious the Iraq will not be the only country in the Middle East to experience a change of regime? The people in Iraq's neighbor countries are just as much against the war as the European population, if not more so, and they have lots of other reasons for anger at the US. When the troops march there could be revolutions in our 'ally' countries like Jordan or Saudi Arabi. Not a very good outcome to have to occupy Iraq while trying to rebuild it and simultaneously deal with the sudden cut off of all Saudi oil. Even Egypt is not safe from this possibility. Now that would be a serious mess if the most populous Arab country were to have a revolution and switch to Islamic radicalism. No more acces to the Suez canal and Israel would have serious security problems again.

dogscoff

March 19th, 2003, 05:51 PM

d) or the EEE. It's about as likely.
rotflmao

Btw, atrocities, you accuse BaronM of flaming you, but he was only continuing in the tone you set. Remember, earlier on you accused people protesting against the war (ie half this thread) of being "like crazed followers of Satan", and then go on to make all kinds of other rabid accusations. As someone who has protested here on the forums and out on the streets I could consider your comments 2 pages ago as flames.

Atrocities

March 19th, 2003, 06:30 PM

Point taken Dogscoff. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif However what I said was not directed at anyone personally here at the forum. Baron Munchausen comments were directed at me personally.

But hey, we all have opinions on this, and we are all passionate about our views. Sometimes in the heat of the moment fingers type faster than reason.

I would hope that nothing said here in this thread is ever taken to heart.

[ March 19, 2003, 16:38: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

tbontob

March 19th, 2003, 06:42 PM

Seems like I stirred up the pot which was my intention. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

But I stand by what I have written. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

So, more stuff to promote a conversation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Sure the war may widen. But God, I hope not. Which is why I suggested the USA get out ASAP. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And yes, the UN may not do well. But at least it becomes the UN problem. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

A coalition of 45 nations? Well, if you want to call it one. Canada's ships are doing picket duty there but will not invade Iraq. Other nations have made their position clear as well.

EDIT: I guess you can technically say even France is part of the coalition when they say they will become involved if Iraq uses weapons of mass destruction in the war.

[ March 19, 2003, 17:02: Message edited by: tbontob ]

thorfrog

March 19th, 2003, 06:59 PM

All I have to say is blame these radical nations who support terror for the coming war. By funding these Groups they up'd the antie in the world. Did these nations think the US would not react after 9/11. The US would rather avoid war at all cost. We have to strike now. Bush will probably not not win re-election because of this. But I give him credit, he is has the backbone to what is right. This will send a message that escallating attacks against America will have consequences.

I wonder what would happen if ALCADA attacked multiple sites in Europe, Russia, or China. Do you think human life would be a priority on their list. Well, maybe Europe. But then America would have to foot the bill for the EU.

I'm not saying this should be the responce to every nation like Iraq. But then again every other nation hasn't had 12 years of sanctions and signed treaties against chem/bio weapons. With the current Iraqi government gone countries like Iran and North Korea will take notice. The US does not make empty promisses. Maybe they will think twice on supporting terror Groups.

thorfrog

March 19th, 2003, 07:13 PM

Another thing, I think the US has had plenty of patients with Iraq. If we look at history wars began for lesser reasons. WWI kicked off after the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinan. WWII began because of the failure of Euro appeasement to Germany. Falkland Island War started because of Argentina's 100 year old claim to the island and viewing the UK as a weaker power. Sometimes war is the only option. Iraq should have been taken care of 12 years ago.

Atrocities

March 19th, 2003, 07:20 PM

You know what, in a year we will all look back at this thread and ask ourselves why.

tesco samoa

March 19th, 2003, 07:26 PM

atomannj
i do hope your including USA in that list of nations.

thorfrog

March 19th, 2003, 08:23 PM

List of nations? Do you mean that have a high reguard for life? Sure. I think it's very well documented that the US is among those countries.

Wardad

March 19th, 2003, 08:27 PM

Bombing???
No, Let us call it "parking lot development".

http://www.milspecgear.com

tbontob

March 19th, 2003, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Wardad:
Bombing???
No, Let us call it "parking lot development".

http://www.milspecgear.comThat could be one massive parking lot. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron

March 19th, 2003, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by SgtBigG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />

To not go ahead would mean some loss of face. Some nations may revise their opinion that the U.S. is a paper tiger which couldn't be further from the truth.

Major expense was incurred to no avail if they do not go ahead.

So thousands of people will die to prevent a loss of face and because of the expense incurred? That doesn't seem like a real good reason for war.<hr /></blockquote>A few thousand deaths in a war are absolutely nothing compared to how many of his own people Saddam has already killed, and will kill in the future if he is not stopped. We are not fighting a war to "save face".

Aloofi

March 19th, 2003, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Click on the link below to play an strategy game about a possible scenario for the "Gulf War II" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Gulf War II (http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml)

.Hey guys, nobody liked the little flash game?

Wardad

March 19th, 2003, 11:25 PM

We played that flash game months ago. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Regardless of Fryons opinion, that game did highlight some possible losing scenarios.

How many countries are stilled ruled by Royal Families? How many goverments have survived with dirt poor starving population and ultra rich ruling class? Does this sound like Saudi Arabia?

/
/
/
Another repeat: French Army Knife
http://www.milspecgear.com/french.html

[ March 19, 2003, 21:34: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Fyron

March 19th, 2003, 11:27 PM

It was a load of garbage the first time we saw it, and it is still a load of garbage today. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Aloofi

March 19th, 2003, 11:34 PM

From the Middle East Watcher:

"Bush Accelerates "Road Map" March 16, 2003

According to the NEW YORK TIMES (1), there is every indication that President George W. Bush is on the verge of the greatest double-cross since the Allied nations sold the Sudetenland to Adolph Hitler. Bush, in a frenzy to save Britain�s Prime Minister Tony Blair and himself, desperately needs a public relations counterbalance to the war against Iraq which cannot be stopped. Bush himself cannot be seen as the same failure as his father - now having pledged enormous physical assets in the Gulf.

Blair has apparently begged Bush for a life ring to save his plunging career. The only thing Bush had to offer was publically exposing the �unmodified� "Road Map", as a sop to the British Parliament and others. His excuse will be that Yassir Arafat has (finally) proposed Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) as a figurehead Prime Minister. Abu Mazen will have no real power but for the propaganda purposes that can be sold to the Media and the U.N. He will do to it to pull off the betrayal. Israel will be the bone thrown to the pack to stop their barking as each scrambles to get his share.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon thought he had a solid deal with Bush but he was mistaken. He thought that a �modified� "Road Map" with Israel's 120 corrections included, would be presented to Israel and the world - but - only after the war against Iraq was over. Sharon "thought" Bush would keep his earlier pledge to mandate that Arafat�s Palestinian Authority would first (I repeat first) cease their terror, cease training their children to hate and kill Jews, cease anti-Israel propaganda, and a host of other agreements that, when acted upon - only then would the concept of another Arab Palestinian State begin to take effect.

As it seems to be turning out, Sharon will pretend that what he is being offered is exactly what he had in mind. The trade-off will be what his aide, Dov Weinglass negotiated - or rather had to accept for the needed financial aid to boost Israel�s sagging economy which has crashed due to Sharon and Silvan Shalom�s fumbling. As in the Oslo debate, the words will be there on paper but, as with all the Oslo agreements preceding, only Israel will be forced to fulfill her obligations, denials notwithstanding. The Arab Palestinians will only have to �promise� to try. The words "even-handed" will be the oft-repeated mantra.

It appears that, when Sharon once said that Israel would not be another Sudetenland in order to pacify the Arabs and the other nations, he was wrong.

Sharon, a clever man but, in some ways unworldly, is about to find he has made Israel vulnerable in the extreme. Sharon bet all his chips on the word of one man when he should have also been solidifying his relations with the American Congress and the Christian Right Coalition which is Bush�s political base.

Israel is about to be sold to pay for Blair�s job, Bush�s war and the good will of Arab nations who will continue hating America and Israel - no matter how much Israel is pushed to the wall.

Bush may think that the American Congress, the American people and the Christian Coalition that has been his bedrock, will forget what he is about to do to Israel, but they will not. Bush will pull out all the propaganda stops to make the selling of Israel look like a great leap into peace but, few will believe the hype.

Yassir Arafat still rules but, even if he is killed off, another Arab state of Palestine will still become the most concentrated Arab nation of terror this old planet has ever known.

Sharon, Bush and Blair will be the co-godfathers for years of misery for the 3.5 to 5 million Arabs stuffed into a tiny, dysfunctional State, thereby causing the probable elimination of the Jewish State of Israel. These demographics are the greater threat to the only democratic state in the Middle East and America�s best and most reliable ally.

Those most pleased will be the "Quartet" (the E.U., the U.N., Russia and the U.S. State Department). France, Germany and China will be delighted and Tony Blair will get to keep his job for another few years. NATO, having drifted into irrelevance with the collapse of the Soviet Union, will be given the "make work" job of being the military force guarding the "New State of Arab Palestine" and thereby restraining Israel from responding to ongoing Terror attacks.

I believe that Bush, like his father, will be a one-term President. Sharon will retire to his farm and try to write such memoirs that will explain away his Last years in office when he betrayed all of his principals.

The scum of this planet have been trying to eradicate the Jews for a few thousand years. It appears that, with the help of some weak Jewish leaders, they may very well succeed.

(In the meantime) URGENT SOLUTIONS on the IRAQI TRACK

If Saddam either attacks Israel pre-emptively, or in the first days of the coming war with Iraq s hit with chemical, biological weapons - or even conventional explosives - since no one will know if Saddam�s next missiles will be with the catastrophic WMD (Weapons of Mass Death). Arik Sharon should consider the following strategy of response:

1. Before Israel strikes back, release reports on the damage and human suffering which is taking place due to Saddam�s first strike. (Note! I realize this will negatively impact the civilian morale of the nation, however, there will be certain macabre benefits, as follows):

2. After Saddam�s first strike, Israel must strike back quickly with nuclear weapons across Iraq, to include Bagdad, Takrit (Saddam�s hometown) and the Iraqi military bases, bunkers and Saddam�s palaces (which probably conceal many stores of his WMD (Weapons of Mass Death). While the Arab world, America and the E.U. will object, it will be hard to make their case if, as I said earlier, an International news report is issued on the colossal damage done by Saddam�s expected first strike on Israel.

Israel�s retaliatory strike may not be liked but, it will be understood. It will shield Israel from efforts after the Iraqi war to punish Israel with various embargoes, trade restraints, imposition of foreign troops as in Bosnia, even the possible emplacement of a new NATO (without America) positioned as if they are a "peace-keeping" force or "international monitors" to allegedly "protect" the Arab Palestinians from Israel�s efforts to control the Arabs� Terrorism.

3. Release videotapes of the damage done in Israel for International distribution. Insist that the foreign Media use their satellite feeds to transfer the scenes to American, European and Arabic networks.

If we must suffer the consequences of a first strike from Iraq, then make use of it. Israel was requested/ordered by America NOT to strike Iraq pre-emptively and to exercise their proverbial �restraint�, which Israel did religiously.

This should be repeated in nationally televised speeches by the Prime Minister - before their retaliatory strike(s). Hopefully, Bibi Netanyahu will be similarly urged to make the point that Israel - at great risk, restrained herself in deference to the requests by President Bush.

Israel would have paid the highest price any nation could be expected to pay in order to accommodate a friend and ally. Having been hit by an enemy with whom no one could reason, and having sustained unacceptable casualties, we have had no choice but to eliminate an enemy who has shown himself ready to destroy Israel and any other nations who stand in his way.

Message: "We regret that we were forced to make the choice between elimination of our own people and the destruction of Iraq."

This message should be repeated numerous times. International journalists should be briefed several times a week and, if necessary, be forced to transmit Israel�s message or be ejected from the country as supporters of hostile enemy actions. Israel�s future �vis a vis� the U.N. and the E.U., America will be shaped by the thoughts and positions taken by Israel during the time of war.

1. "Bush Promises to Adopt Plan for Mideast" by Steven R. Weisman NEW YORK TIMES March 15, 2003

Mephisto

March 20th, 2003, 12:11 AM

It is, Baron, but most people prefer not to see it. Or they just refuse to think about it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
You are right about the international law matter and I fear that in the long run the US and the rest of the world will see what they have done when they abandoned the law in favour of might.

jimbob

March 20th, 2003, 12:48 AM

Aloofi:

Or better yet, Isreal should set off a cluster of nukes in the Iraqi desert to show how it could have made a giant mirror out of downtown Bagdad, but "once again" was capable of demonstrating a super-human amount of restraint. It would be important that Isreal somehow manages to broadcast the unbelievable sorrow of a devastated Israel.

I'd suggest that the desert-->insta-glass demo be postponed at least 2 days after the Isreal incident, to allow some play time of the Isreali sorrow. Otherwise, the world press will focus instead on the "plight of the Iraqi Red-Brested Desert Tit" or the "devestation of the rare Double-Barrel Euphrates Spine Cactus" following the "uncalled for" Isreali reprissal against the vast unoccupied Iraqi wastes.*

* Perhaps I seem a little pesimistic about the objectivity of the worlds' press agencies regarding the likelyhood of Isreali suffering getting equal air time with the suffering of others. In my defence I'll simply say that, while I don't know about the rest of the world, our major news agency (the CBC) loves to report things like
Isreali tanks rolled into Gaza again today, reportedly killing 12 Palestinians and destroying a number of homes in response to yesterday's bombing attack.They never say that the bombing attack targetted and killed a bus load of children, or that the bomb killed a group of people who were doing nothing more than a little Sunday shopping. I'm pretty sure that Jews have funerals, but I've yet to see one displayed on my TV! (okay, that's a bit overboard, I have actually seen two scenes of Jewish mourners over the Last few years, one of and Isreali family, the other of a Dutch-Jewish family on holiday). And when do we ever actually get confimation on the numbers of Palestinians killed? Remember the Jenin (sp) masacre - three weeks later we learn from UN observers that not one person had been killed! But retractions don't make front line news... just unconfirmed, questionable numbers.

Well thats my opinion, take it for what it is (or isn't) worth.
And from the other Canadians: am I reading the CBC wrong here? What's your opinion?

Rigelian

March 20th, 2003, 12:51 AM

This message should be repeated numerous times. International journalists should be briefed several times a week and, if necessary, be forced to transmit Israel�s message or be ejected from the country as supporters of hostile enemy actions.
This guy really means that doesn't he? No trace of irony discernible... presumably what he'd really like to do is line them up and shoot them if they don't report the 'right' story.

But apart from the scary mentality revealed here, there is one viewpoint that I would really like to understand. From my perspective (pro-US Brit, for what it's worth) I have never been able to understand this - why does Israel consider itself to be such a great ally of the USA? The converse goes without saying of course. But Israel is a financial drain and a massive political liability to the USA, and should be grateful to have such a loyal ally. Frankly, if the US says 'jump' then Israel should be saying 'how high', not *****ing about the US considering it's other interests and alliances for once.

Any of you Americans feel that way? Because I would in your shoes.

rextorres

March 20th, 2003, 01:09 AM

I am not sure what statistics you guys are quoting but 3-4x as many Palistinian have been killed than Israelis and more Palistinian civilians have been killed than Israeli.

The symantics in the American media are appalling. Everytime an Israeli dies it's a massacre and everytime a Palistinian dies it's collateral damage. Any Palistinian who defends his city is a gunman Israeli invaders are soldiers. Illegally occupied areas are called settlements. etc., etc.

If some israeli occupier came into my country and displaced me and some israeli tanks came into my city even though I was minding my own business I definitely would pick up a gun and fight back.

If my son were "accidently" killed as collateral damage I would probably be angry enough to exact revenge on the people of the state that supported that government.

The Palistinians are simply doing what a lot of you have stated in this forum that the Iraqis should be doing - "fighting back against an oppressive regime". Someone even quoted Patrick Henry if I recall correctly.

[ March 19, 2003, 23:10: Message edited by: rextorres ]

rextorres

March 20th, 2003, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by SgtBigG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />

To not go ahead would mean some loss of face. Some nations may revise their opinion that the U.S. is a paper tiger which couldn't be further from the truth.

Major expense was incurred to no avail if they do not go ahead.

So thousands of people will die to prevent a loss of face and because of the expense incurred? That doesn't seem like a real good reason for war.<hr /></blockquote>A few thousand deaths in a war are absolutely nothing compared to how many of his own people Saddam has already killed, and will kill in the future if he is not stopped. We are not fighting a war to "save face".<hr /></blockquote>Well Fyron would you be willing to die. Or would you want someone you know to die to displace Saddam. It's easy to dismiss "a few thousand deaths" as long as it's not you or someone you know.

Rigelian

March 20th, 2003, 01:21 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isreali tanks rolled into Gaza again today, reportedly killing 12 Palestinians and destroying a number of homes in response to yesterday's bombing attack.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They never say that the bombing attack targetted and killed a bus load of children, or that the bomb killed a group of people who were doing nothing more than a little Sunday shopping The only objective thing to do is to report both of course. I don't know about CBC but I'd say that overall the BBC does a decent job of that. But they still get criticised of course. It is a firmly held conviction in the Arab world that an Arab life is considered to be worth less than an Israeli one (by the West). Maybe they should watch CBC...

The interesting thing here (for me) is the subtext that Israel is held to higher standards than the Palestinians. I agree that this is indeed the case. For example, the Palestinian Authority are mainly incompetent crooks who have embezzled or wasted millions in aid; but you are much more likely to hear about some slightly dodgy farm deal that Sharon was involved in. This may seem unfair but it is inevitable for two reasons;

a) Israel is overwhelmingly more powerful. If you don't see the buildup/provocation, there seems no excuse for a soldier with a rifle to fire at someone throwing rocks at him. Or to drive his tank through a building. The gut instinct is always to side with the underdog.

b) The Western media will hold 'Western' cultures to higher standards than others, every time. In the case of Israel the assumption, usually unspoken, is that Israelis are more 'like us' than the Arabs and are held to those higher standards. After all, Israel is a democracy, has diverse multi-party politics, free speech, a market economy, high technology, Nobel prizewinnners...its a Western country. This can be argued pretty strongly to be a form of racism in itself of course. But it's not anti Israeli at all, but the opposite, however unfair and frustrating it might seem.

tesco samoa

March 20th, 2003, 02:16 AM

I think that links like that would be from Michael Albert, Noam Chomsky, David Baramian, Edward Herman James Petras, Steven Shalom, and Howard Zinn. Even Jello.

Fantastic writters. Though I do not always agree with what they write. I do enjoy reading their words.

Thermodyne

March 20th, 2003, 02:48 AM

Change of pace http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Looks like there may be some in the EU who arn't all that chummy.

____________________________________________

DATE=3/19/2003

TYPE=CORRESPONDENT REPORT

TITLE= EU / SPYING (S-O)

NUMBER=2-300903

BYLINE= DOUGLAS BAKSHIAN

DATELINE=LUXEMBOURG

CONTENT=

INTRO: Officials in Brussels say telephone tapping systems have been found on the phone lines of several countries at the European Union headquarters. The discovery was made before an E-U summit scheduled for Thursday. Douglas Bakshian is monitoring the situation from Luxembourg.

TEXT: E-U spokesman Dominique-George Marro says the devices were found at the E-U Council building. The spokesman says devices were discovered on the telephone lines during a regular security check a few days ago, but only a small number of lines are affected. The E-U says the phones of the French and German delegations were tapped, and the British delegation says it was also tapped.

Other reports said the bugging system was apparently put in place through a switchboard to monitor telephone lines to rooms used by delegations inside the building. The E-U spokesman said an investigation has been launched and there is no immediate indication who is behind the bugging.

Leaders of the 15 E-U nations are to hold a summit in the same building Thursday and Friday. (SIGNED)

NEB/DB/AWP/RAE/KBK

Thermodyne

March 20th, 2003, 02:50 AM

Whoops forgot to say that we are at w-0:08:10 and counting

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 02:52 AM

Well Fyron would you be willing to die. Or would you want someone you know to die to displace Saddam. It's easy to dismiss "a few thousand deaths" as long as it's not you or someone you know. You missed the point. Deaths have already been happening in Iraq because of Saddam. Many, many deaths. More will undoubtedly happen because of him. A short period of war and a few deaths in it will stop the madness of Saddam's rule. Many lives will be saved.

I don't want anyone to die. But, people have been dying already. Stopping the mass-murders is worth a few lives.

[ March 20, 2003, 00:53: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Thermodyne

March 20th, 2003, 02:54 AM

I think we know the players on the Allied side, so here is the home teams line up.

Baath Party Regional Command / Revolution Command Council
Chairman Husayn, SADDAM

Vice-Chairman Ezzet [Izzat] Ibrahim
Member Lieut. Gen. Ali Hasan Al-Majeed

Member Mezban Khider Hadi
Member Aziz Salih Numan

Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member [until May 2001] Zubaydi Muhammad Hamza al-

Supervisor of Republican Guard Qusay Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti

State
President Husayn, SADDAM

Vice President Maruf, Taha Muhyi al-Din
Vice President Ramadan, Taha Yasin
Adviser to the Pres. Azzawi, Hatim Hamdan al-
Adviser to the Pres. Habubi, Safa Hadi Jawad, Dr.
Adviser to the Pres. Qasir, Nizar Jumah Ali al-
Adviser to the Pres. Tikriti, Barzan Ibrahim Hasan al-

Adviser to the Pres. Tikriti, Watban Ibrahim al-Hasan al-
Adviser to the Pres. for Military Affairs Jabburi, Sadi Tuma Abbas al-
Government
Prime Minister Husayn, SADDAM

Deputy Prime Minister Aziz, Tariq Mikhail

Deputy Prime Minister Azzawi, Hikmat Mizban Ibrahim al-
Deputy Prime Minister Khudayir, Ahmad Husayn al-
Deputy Prime Minister Huwaysh, Abd al-Tawab Mullah al-

Deputy Prime Minister [until May 2001] Zubaydi Muhammad Hamza al-

Min. of Agriculture Salih, Abd al-Ilah Hamid Mahmud al-
Min. of Awqaf & Religious Affairs Salih, Abd al-Munim Ahmad
Min. of Culture Hammadi, Hamid Yusuf
Min. of Defense Jabburi Tai, Sultan Hashim Ahmad al-, Lt. Gen.
Min. of Education Shaqrah, Fahd Salim
Min. of Finance Azzawi, Hikmat Mizban Ibrahim al-
Min. of Foreign Affairs Hadithi, Naji Sabri Ahmad al-

Min. of Health Mubarak, Umid Midhat
Min. of Higher Education & Scientific Research Abd al-Ghafur, Humam Abd al-Khaliq, Dr.
Min. of Housing & Reconstruction Sarsam, Maan Abdallah al-
Min. of Industry & Minerals Shalah, Muyassar Raja
Min. of Information Sahhaf, Muhammad Said Kazim al-
Min. of Interior Ahmad, Mahmud Dhiyab al-
Min. of Irrigation Swadi, Rasul Abd al-Husayn al-
Min. of Justice Shawi, Mundhir Ibrahim al-
Min. of Labor & Social Affairs Naqshabandi, Mundhir Mudhafar Muhammad Asad al-
Min. of Military Industrialization Huwaysh, Abd al-Tawab Mullah al-

Min. of Oil Ubaydi, Amir Rashid Muhammad al-
Min. of Planning
Min. of Trade Salih, Muhammad Mahdi al-
Min. of Transport & Communications Khalil, Ahmad Murtada Ahmad, Dr.
Min. of Youth [unofficial] Uday Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti

Min. of State Zibari, Arshad Muhammad Ahmad Muhammad al-
Min. of State for Military Affairs Shanshal, Abd al-Jabbar Khalil, Staff Gen.
Other Leadership
Governor, Central Bank Huwaysh, Isam Rashid al-
Head of Interests Section in the US Duri, Akram Jasim al-
Permanent Representative to the UN, New York Duri, Muhammad Abdallah Ahmad Shati

Atrocities

March 20th, 2003, 03:46 AM

Change of pace

Looks like there may be some in the EU who arn't all that chummy. OMG The CIA did it! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

mac5732

March 20th, 2003, 06:13 AM

it has started

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/bombsaddam.shtml

[ March 20, 2003, 04:14: Message edited by: mac5732 ]

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 06:25 AM

I hope the 40+ cruise missile strike happened to hit Saddam, so we can end the war quickly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Edit:
Looks like they didn't. Oh well.

[ March 20, 2003, 04:49: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

dogscoff

March 20th, 2003, 10:14 AM

There's an almost-subtle but funny war-dig on today's diesel sweeties. (http://www.dieselsweeties.com)

tesco samoa

March 20th, 2003, 04:54 PM

the gulf war two drinking game

drink when:

bush is called a crusader
x2 if its by saddam
saddam is called evil
x2 if its by bush
iraq troops surrender to the media
x2 if to a unmanned vehicle or inanimate object
iraq uses weapons it claims not to have
the united states uses weapons it won't allow iraq to have
a member of the media gets shot at
a toast to the shooter if its ashleigh banfield(msnbc), geraldo riviera(fox) or arron brown(cnn)
saddam uses a scud he doesnt have
x2 if its towards Israel
the united states terrorist threat level changes
the united states government tries to link iraq to 9-11
france goes pro US invasion
germany takes the side of the united states in a global war
Dominique de Villepin reminds you of that annoying rich kid in high school
someone implies tony blair is bush's *****
someone implies scott ritter is Saddam's *****
anybody 'warns' anybody
the word "escalation" is used
iraq and the united states are shown seated next to each other in the united nations
an American is shot down over iraq
x2 if an iraqi makes in into an aircraft
an American is shot,
x2 if its by an enemy
the media compares the war to blackhawk down
x2 if its because a blackhawk really goes down
a puppet government is installed in iraq
x2 if its by the puppet government installed in the US
saddam uses the word 'Zionist'
x2 if its bin laden
you change your opinion on the war
the media shows iraqi children in a hospital because of international sanctions
x2 if its because of american military action
finish your drink if saddam actually put them there, but claimed it was the united states
iraq promises full and complete cooporation with inspectors
Iraqi civilians greet Americans with cheers
x2 if its with bullets
the saudis do something the united states accuses iraq of doing
north korea does something the united states accused iraq of doing
x2 if they don't get away with it
al-jazeera is referred to as the "arab cnn"
finish your drink if cnn is referred to as the "american al-jazeera"
the conflict is compared to the vietnam war
x2 if the word "quagmire" is used
saddam goes missing
finish your drink if he is confimed killed
the pope is said to "pray for peace"
bush mispronounces the word 'nuclear'
finish your drink if its referring to a bomb that has gone off
richard armitage's neck shows up
if you can't find kuwait, bahrain, qatar, oman, or the united arab emirates on a map
x2 if you even own a map of the region
finish your drink if you can pronounce them all correctly
any of the following commentators are on tv:
x1 ken pollack, khidhir hamza, general wesley clark, col david hackworth, general bernard trainor, david kay, richard butler, thomas friedman, scott ritter, thomas andrews, anybody running for United States President
x2 general norman schwarzkopf, general walt boomer, general buster glosson, brent scowcroft, james baker, richard perle, william kristol, james woolsey, henry kissinger
x3 any former united states president
an actor or actress expresses an opinion on the war
x2 if this is the first time you've seen them in a year
an american reminds the french of world war one and two
x2 if a frenchman reminds the americans of the revolutionary war
saddam torches the oil fields
someone reports from "the arab street"
colin powell looks exasperated sitting at the u.n. security council
x2 if its because a country you didnt know exists is commenting on the war
anyone in the bush administration says "make no mistake"
the american military are told what to do by someone with no military experience
x2 if they dodged the vietnam draft
x3 if they dodged the vietnam draft, are an ex-governer of a southern us state, and ever held or holds the title of 'commander-in-chief'
tariq azziz's glasses get larger
somebody says saddam "tortures his own people"
you momentarly confuse george roberston with shrek
an arab country staging american troops speaks against the war
an arrow anti-missle missle is fired
x2 if it intercepts something
tom ridge laughs while discussing potential terrorists attacks
God picks a side
finish your drink if its not yours
somebody implies a blood for oil trade may be in progress
x2 if that person owns a S.U.V.
a protest sign attacks Bush directly
x2 if it attacks saddam directly
The united states bombs anything in iraq before the fighting 'offically' starts
x2 if iraq tries the same thing
Saddam is compared to Hitler
x2 if bush is compared to Hitler
someone compares the size of iraq to california or france
The media refers to itself as 'embedded'
someone says "shock and awe"
The words "Weapon(s) of Mass Destruction" are used
x2 if its shortned to "WMD"
A US Official uses the word "liberate"
Bush says "innocent civilians"
Bush quotes scripture
x2 saddam quotes the koran
Somebody says "between Iraq and a hard place"
A videophone craps out
x2 the anchor apologizes for it
Someone on TV says something contradictory to what is on their news ticker
A news correspondent asks if they can still be heard
x2 if they say "Can you hear me now?"
Any political or military leader refers to Australia

dogscoff

March 20th, 2003, 05:14 PM

Tesco, that's about the most sensible thing I've heard in a long time. I'm going to get drunk and stay there. Someone pour a bucket of water over me when all the liars, warmongers and bastards have choked on their own poisonous words.

[ March 20, 2003, 15:15: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

thorfrog

March 20th, 2003, 08:21 PM

Combat has begun on the ground.

geoschmo

March 20th, 2003, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I hope the 40+ cruise missile strike happened to hit Saddam, so we can end the war quickly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Edit:
Looks like they didn't. Oh well.They might have. It's hard to tell. The speech during his broadcast was kind of vauge. It might have been previously recorded. Or it could have been a body double.

Random throught #1:

Hey, maybe they really got Sadaam back in '91 and Iraq has been ruled for the Last 12 years by a series of surgically enhanced body doubles.

Radmon thought #2:

Despite my personal belief in the justness of this war, and whatever the eventual outcome, it's kind of nice to see India and Pakistan finally agree on something. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

solops

March 20th, 2003, 11:18 PM

The solopian position:

As I write the war has begun. I have little doubt that the United States will prevail in an overwhelming fashion. However, this misconceived war with Iraq needs to be brought to a quick and successful conclusion. The items publicly offered by the Bush Administration as casus belli are patently inadequate as justification for a full scale war, particularly in this case, since we have tolerated Hussein and his weapons for decades. However, those items do offer additional proof to the mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is an evil, murderous thug who has had biological and chemical weapons for over twenty years and who may have nuclear weapons now. It is not, perhaps unfortunately, the American way to launch an unprovoked war against anyone based on the fear of what they might do. The correct course of action was to have Hussein and his henchmen removed by covert means or to wait for them to act overtly against us. I am dismayed by the clumsy thought processes evidenced by the preference for an expensive, flashy and unjustified war as opposed to quieter and much cheaper methods of achieving national security goals. Most importantly, if there are good, unpublicized reason to fight Iraq, make them public. Our government has not deserved unquestioning trust for 30 years, so tell us the whole story for I want to support them.

Now that the mistake has been made, a greater danger has been created in the United Nations. China, France and others, each for their own reasons, may use our actions as fodder to create a new cold war, rallying the jealous or ignorant masses of the Third and even Second worlds against us. International commerce will be made more difficult for us and trade will become the great weapon of the next decade. Countries like France will leverage themselves into the commercial gaps they will create by fanning hatred of the USA. New economic giants will be created to compete with us, in part by supplying enemies such as China in exchange for support. China and India will be ideally situated to play both sides, given their huge domestic markets, and they will surely use the opportunity to create or become major economic competitors to the American industrial juggernaut. This will not happen quickly or completely. We have our own supporters as well, but our relative power will be diminished and a more dangerous world will be a result. We may even see the legal and political precedents we are setting used against us by our competitors, using the UN as a legal tool. Since war on Iraq is to be pursued, the most logical course for the USA to take in furtherance of its own long term protection and benefit is to withdraw from the United Nations and let it collapse before it can become self-sustaining without our support. With that forum removed, not only does Washington become more important in world affairs, but a forum for our foes is removed.

The war on Iraq and Hussein has created a morass. I don�t even want to think about the quagmire presented by post-Hussein regional politics and Iraqi reconstruction. War is an evil thing, a Last resort at best and this was not yet the time for it. End the war quickly to minimize the political and moral damage��And worry about Korea.

Baron Munchausen

March 21st, 2003, 12:33 AM

Guess what, Solops...

The US has been trying to remove Saddam by 'covert' means for most of the Last decade. Once it became apparent that he was not going to fall to the rebellion that sprang up after Gulf War I there was funding publicly voted to support the opposition in Iraq, and in a regime that doesn't allow opposition parties that means plots against the regime. Not only did they catch every attempt, but US handlers got calls from the Iraqi intelligence agents on their own equipment to tell them their agents had been caught and arrested. Presumably they are all dead by now, or perhaps we should say 'hopefully' they are all dead by now. Being alive in a prison run by Saddam is not a pleasant thought.

I personally think this is why Bush has gone bonkers on this issue. The US is quite used to having its way. How many governments have we over-thrown in the past 5 decades or so? It's hard to count... So anyway, Saddam was better at the 'covert' game than the US and the boys in the back room can't stand it. They want his head at all costs.

[ March 20, 2003, 22:35: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

solops

March 21st, 2003, 12:44 AM

I was thinking more in terms of assassination via sniper or smart bomb. Perhaps even a bounty or bribe. Fomenting unrest in a police state like Iraq is futile.

As far as the rebellions after the first Gulf war, that was a no-go. The US's allies did not want Saddam out due to fear of the Iranians. Therefore Iraq proper was not entered and the Republican Guard was allowed to escape so that it could maintain Saddam in power. I guess they hoped he'd be chastened.

I would expect that in a year or three Saddam could be eliminated, if the US was both serious and secretive enough. Or perhaps not.

TerranC

March 21st, 2003, 01:06 AM

Goddamn it, solops, It's North Korea, not Korea. Look at my location (the "From" below my post) to see why that matters.

Also, a question to all you war buffs: can you tell me how the Iraqis managed to get french mirages?

Edit: typing mistakes...

[ March 20, 2003, 23:53: Message edited by: TerranC ]

Fyron

March 21st, 2003, 01:10 AM

What is a french mirage?

Tesco:
when does the moon wax or is it wain.... Wax is grow brighter, wain is grow dimmer (to avoid looking up the astronomical terms http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

[ March 20, 2003, 23:11: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

TerranC

March 21st, 2003, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
What is a french mirage?French-Developed Fighter planes. CNN says that the Iraqi air force has about 10-20 of them.

Thermodyne

March 21st, 2003, 01:39 AM

Iraq has F-1�s, not really front line fighters any more. The Mirrage became famious in the hands of the Israilies. But are very over rated. The F III and F 5 are the delta wing fighters that most people think of as Mirages. The F-1 is a swept wing fighter that looks like and old US Navy F-11 (don�t remember the original designation) The F-1 went onto service in the mid 70�s, and would have been a contemporary of the F-4 Phantom and a year ahead of the F-14 and F-15. So it was a generation behind as soon as it went into service. But then the French would sell to anyone, no questions asked.

F-1 Data

Within a year of the Mirage III entering service with the French air force, Dassault-Breguet was developing a successor. The Mirage F1 has 40 per cent more internal fuel than the Mirage III and a better wing design that improves maneuverability and enables it to take off from shorter runways.
Following on the Mirage F-2, which was a revival of the classic arrow-wing design with stabilizers, the Mirage F-1 is a defense and air superiority single-seater plane. This revival was made possible by technological advances which permit manufacture of ultra-thin but robust wings, enabling at supersonic speeds flight performance equivalent to that of delta wings. The integrity of the fuselage structure allows the aircraft to carry a maximum amount of fuel.
The wings are high-mounted, swept-back, and tapered. Missiles are usually mounted at the wing tips. There is one turbojet engine in the body. There are semicircular air intakes alongside the body forward of the wing roots. There is a single exhaust. The fuselage is long, slender, pointed nose and a blunt tail. There are two small belly fins under the tail section and a bubble canopy. The tail is swept-back and tapered fin with a blunt tip. The flats are mid-mounted on the fuselage, swept-back, and tapered with blunt tips.
The Mirage F-1 prototype made its maiden flight with Ren� Bigand at the controls, 23rd December 1966, at Melun-Villaroche (the Seine-et-Marne region of France).
The French air force ordered the Mirage Fl for its interceptor squadrons, and the first F1s entered service in 1973. The Fl proved a very popular export, with over 500 of them sold abroad in the first 10 years of production. More than 700 Mirage F-1's have been sold to some 11 countries. The Dassault Mirage F-1C was the standard French fighter before Mirage 2000 entered service in the air force in 1984. The Mirage Fl has seen combat in the Persian Gulf, where Iraqi Mirage F1s played an important role in the attacks on tankers during the late 1980s. There are several Versions now operational - all-weather interceptors, fighter-bombers and dedicated reconnaissance aircraft.

Specifications
Country of Origin France
Builder team : Dassault Aviation, SNECMA, Thomson-CSF
Role Mirage F1 CT - Close Air Support (CAS) / attack / fighter
Mirage F1 CR - Tactical reconnaissance / fighter
First flight : November 1981
1992 for the new weapons system (F1 CT Version)
In-service in French Air Force : 1983
Similar Aircraft Super Etendard
Mitsubishi F-1
AV-8B Harrier II
Fantan A
Crew one
trainer--two
Length 49 ft (14.94 m) 15.33 m
Span 27 ft, 7 in (8.4 m)
Height : 4.50 m
Weight 8.1 t empty
15.2 t maximum at takeoff
Power plant / Thrust : SNECMA Atar 9K50 jet engine / 4.7 t and 6.8 t with afterburner
Ceiling 52,000 ft [20,000 meters ?]
Maximum speed : Mach 2.2
Cruise range 1160 nm
In-Flight Refueling Y
Internal Fuel 3435 kg
Fuel capacity : 4,100 l internal / 6,400 l maximal / In-flight refuelling
Payload 6300 kg
Sensors Cyrano IVM radar (-200 has IWMR), RWR
Drop Tanks 1160 L drop tank with 927kg of fuel for 157nm of range
2300 l drop tank with 1837kg of fuel for 310nm of range
Armament 2 30mm DEFA 553 cannon
2 Matra Magic R550
free fall and parachute drag bombs
Special equipment : Radar Thomson-CSF Cyrano IV-MR (air-to-air, air-to-ground), inertial navigation system, panoramic camera Omera 40, vertical camera Omera 33, IR thermographic captor Super Cyclope, lateral radar Raphael, electromagnetic emissions detector Astac, photographic pod RP35P, Desire digital video recce pod, electronic counter measures
NATO interoperability : In-flight refuelling by NATO aircraft, armament and ammunitions in accordance with NATO standards
User Country France
Greece
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Libya
Morocco
Qatar
South Africa
Spain
Number of units produced : 740 (all types of Mirage F1 included)
French Air Force inventory : 40 aircraft in 2 squadrons

primitive

March 21st, 2003, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by TerranC:

Also, a question to you all war buffs: can you tell me how the Iraqis managed to get french mirages?Between 1982 and 1987 Iraq bought 100+ Mirage F1s from France (This was done with US blessing so don't use this for France-bashing). Most was destroyed in Gulf War 1. Some sources also claim that Iraq stole 8 Mirage F1s from Kuwait during the same war.

Anyway, these fighters is now antiquated and will probably be of little use.

Thermodyne

March 21st, 2003, 02:12 AM

Well, I don�t want to be rude here, but your statement is untrue. France actively sought out sales in Iraq. They were even trying to set up joint ventures to build the 2000 mark. France would sell their soul if someone was willing to pay for it. Remember they are the bastards that sold this tyrant a breeder reactor.

Quote from Global Security :

The equipment of the air force and the army's air corps, like that of the other services, was primarily of Soviet manufacture. After 1980, however, in an effort to diversify its sources of advanced armaments, Iraq turned to France for Mirage fighters and for attack helicopters. Between 1982 and 1987, Iraq received or ordered a variety of equipment from France, including more than 100 Mirage F-1s, about 100 Gazelle, Super-Frelon, and Alouette helicopters, and a variety of air-to-surface and air-to-air missiles, including Exocets. Other attack helicopters purchased included the Soviet Hind equipped with AT-2 Swatter, and BO-105s equipped with AS-11 antitank guided weapons. In addition, Iraq bought seventy F-7 (Chinese Version of the MiG-21) fighters, assembled in Egypt. Thus Iraq's overall airpower was considerable.
Between 1977 and 1987, Paris contracted to sell a total of 133 Mirage F-1 fighters to Iraq. The first transfer occurred in 1978, when France supplied eighteen Mirage F-1 interceptors and thirty helicopters, and even agreed to an Iraqi share in the production of the Mirage 2000 in a US$2 billion arms deal. In 1983 another twenty-nine Mirage F-1s were exported to Baghdad. And in an unprecedented move, France "loaned" Iraq five SuperEtendard attack aircraft, equipped with Exocet AM39 air-to- surface missiles, from its own naval inventory. The SuperEtendards were used extensively in the 1984 tanker war before being replaced by several F-1s. The final batch of twenty-nine F1s was ordered in September 1985 at a cost of more than US$500 million, a part of which was paid in crude oil. Iraq also bought more than 400 Exocet AM39 air-to-surface missiles and at least 200 AS30 laser-guided missiles between 1983 and 1986.

Baron Munchausen

March 21st, 2003, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by solops:
I was thinking more in terms of assassination via sniper or smart bomb. Perhaps even a bounty or bribe. Fomenting unrest in a police state like Iraq is futile.

As far as the rebellions after the first Gulf war, that was a no-go. The US's allies did not want Saddam out due to fear of the Iranians. Therefore Iraq proper was not entered and the Republican Guard was allowed to escape so that it could maintain Saddam in power. I guess they hoped he'd be chastened.

I would expect that in a year or three Saddam could be eliminated, if the US was both serious and secretive enough. Or perhaps not.They weren't paying for a quiet arrest, you know. The idea was exactly what you suggest, to foment a military coup. Guns, grenades, shrapnel. Nasty stuff. And every officer they recruited was caught. Some Colonel in the Iraqi intelligence services would pick up the fancy encrypted satellite phone they had given their chosen 'covert operative' to keep in touch with and tell them he had been arrested. *click* End of coup attempt. The Iraqi intelligence services are good. After many attempts they have decided to get rid of Saddam the hard way.

[ March 21, 2003, 00:19: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

primitive

March 21st, 2003, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Well, I don�t want to be rude here, but your statement is untrue. France actively sought out sales in Iraq. They were even trying to set up joint ventures to build the 2000 mark. France would sell their soul if someone was willing to pay for it. Remember they are the bastards that sold this tyrant a breeder reactor.

Thermo:
I'm gonna use your favorite trick here: Link please.

I do not deny that France actively sought sales in Iraq, but AFAIK the US did not try to prevent the sales (something they easily could have done, since the Mirage aircrafts include a lot of restricted technology France would need permission to sell).
If you can prove me wrong, I will bow to the master.

tesco samoa

March 21st, 2003, 02:56 AM

when does the moon wax or is it wain.... Thats when the ground forces attack. Still to bright at night. So Friday , or Sunday.

Thermodyne

March 21st, 2003, 03:00 AM

It is not US policy to block sales made by other nations. I have posted a list of the Nations that France sold F-1s to. And most of them were not allowed to purchase US weapons at the time. The US is not overly picky about who we sell to, but we do not supply advanced weapons to despots. My link is in the quote contained in my Last post. The full text can be found at Globalsecurity�s web site. Mr Pike is well known for posting facts that the US would have rather kept out of the public eye. Now I would like to see your link showing US involvement in the French arms sales.

primitive

March 21st, 2003, 03:22 AM

Now your pulling a Fyron on me.

The burden of evidence is Yours, since you called my post untrue. Your link have no evidence either for or against US support. It's just a list of sales that nobody denies.

Anyway, all this is ancient history and the planes will be of no practical use in this war.

Thermodyne

March 21st, 2003, 03:50 AM

The US linkage to the Iraq Iran war has already been posted and discussed in this very thread. Advice, Intelligence, and Loan Guarantees are the descriptions of the involvement. I�m sure that personal advice was also given, but the document only alludes to the value of this. At no point does the document say that the US provided advanced weaponry to Saddam. Fact is that the other side was using American weapons, although they were previously on hand.

Now you have stated that Saddam bought the F 1�s with the blessings of the US government. Post some supporting evidence or admit that it was a personal opinion. No one will fault you for stating your opinion, it is a right that we all have here. But we will fault you for stating opinion as fact.

To ask that I provide proof that something didn�t happen is ridiculous. What evidence would there be of a non event.

Askan Nightbringer

March 21st, 2003, 03:55 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
It is not US policy to block sales made by other nations. I have posted a list of the Nations that France sold F-1s to. And most of them were not allowed to purchase US weapons at the time. The US is not overly picky about who we sell to, but we do not supply advanced weapons to despots. My link is in the quote contained in my Last post. The full text can be found at Globalsecurity�s web site. Mr Pike is well known for posting facts that the US would have rather kept out of the public eye. Now I would like to see your link showing US involvement in the French arms sales.Well this finger pointing at France is just stupid. Behind every despot in the world is a permanent member of the Security Council arming them.

That Global Security website doesn't mention who supplied Iraq with the cultures it used to start its biological weapons program. There was a US senate report in 1994 detailing all the shipments, that continued after Saddam was gassing Kurds in the 80s. Now what the hell was that? What sort of crazy nutter gives Saddam the tools to make biological weapons? How completely f*ck*d up is that? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

You want links?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp-list_x.htm

www.timesOnline.co.uk/article/0,,3-528574,00.html (http://www.timesOnline.co.uk/article/0,,3-528574,00.html)

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021001-8211716.htm

Askan

Thermodyne

March 21st, 2003, 04:14 AM

The Biologic agents were provided in good faith under a program that was intended to help free the world from these organisms. It was a program developed at the UN in conjunction with the CDC. Was it done in poor judgment, I think so. But you link this to the use of Chemical weapons, and those would fall at the feet of the Soviets, and were manufactured in French supplied plants. Also the US never supplied the equipment to make large quantities of these agents. Again, this would be the French and Germans. Sure, they may have thought that the equipment was for other uses. But now that it is time to put a stop to this foolishness, where are the three main suppliers.

In closing, at least America has the fortitude to put and end to this madness. We will end the reign of this particular despot. Which is a hell of a lot more than France wanted to do.

Thermodyne

March 21st, 2003, 04:25 AM

A little research goes a long way. This is where the samples came from. This is not part of the US government. And what it did was legal at the time it was done. Stupid yes, but not against the law at that time.

http://www.atcc.org/About/AboutATCC.cfm

Askan Nightbringer

March 21st, 2003, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
The Biologic agents were provided in good faith under a program that was intended to help free the world from these organisms. It was a program developed at the UN in conjunction with the CDC. Was it done in poor judgment, I think so. But you link this to the use of Chemical weapons, and those would fall at the feet of the Soviets, and were manufactured in French supplied plants. Also the US never supplied the equipment to make large quantities of these agents. Again, this would be the French and Germans. Sure, they may have thought that the equipment was for other uses. But now that it is time to put a stop to this foolishness, where are the three main suppliers.

In closing, at least America has the fortitude to put and end to this madness. We will end the reign of this particular despot. Which is a hell of a lot more than France wanted to do.Poor judgement is a bit of an understatement. I would prefer to use criminally stupid.

I don't link them to chemical weapons, I just pointed out the shipments continued after the gassing of Kurds, by a horrible murderous tyrant.

See my point really is this-

You sit there and spout stuff about how bad the French are in arming this complete anus of a man ("Remember they are the bastards that sold this tyrant a breeder reactor."), while claiming the US has has been almost perfect in its handling of Iraq over the Last 30 years ("but we do not supply advanced weapons to despots") and here's hard evidence the US started Saddam's biological weapons program, which you dismiss with a "poor judgement" and a "the US never supplied the equipment to make large quantities of these agents".
Its weak, very weak.

Oh...the cultures was sent by both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (government)
and the American Type Culture Collection (approved by the government). The usatoday article lists who sent what.

Askan
Not supporting the arming of despots by anyone.

Thermodyne

March 21st, 2003, 05:11 AM

Spy photo????

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/iraq_****iraq.jpg

Edit: took the tags off, you'll have to hit the link

[ March 21, 2003, 03:13: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Thermodyne

March 21st, 2003, 05:15 AM

LMAO

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/saddam_mobilescuds.jpg

Thermodyne

March 21st, 2003, 05:18 AM

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/saddam_michaeljackson.jpg

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/saddam_dangling.jpg

Thermodyne

March 21st, 2003, 05:22 AM

Ever wonder how the White House wages war in the computer age?

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/iraq_warwizard.gif

Thermodyne

March 21st, 2003, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Thermodyne:
The Biologic agents were provided in good faith under a program that was intended to help free the world from these organisms. It was a program developed at the UN in conjunction with the CDC. Was it done in poor judgment, I think so. But you link this to the use of Chemical weapons, and those would fall at the feet of the Soviets, and were manufactured in French supplied plants. Also the US never supplied the equipment to make large quantities of these agents. Again, this would be the French and Germans. Sure, they may have thought that the equipment was for other uses. But now that it is time to put a stop to this foolishness, where are the three main suppliers.

In closing, at least America has the fortitude to put and end to this madness. We will end the reign of this particular despot. Which is a hell of a lot more than France wanted to do.Poor judgement is a bit of an understatement. I would prefer to use criminally stupid.

I don't link them to chemical weapons, I just pointed out the shipments continued after the gassing of Kurds, by a horrible murderous tyrant.

See my point really is this-

You sit there and spout stuff about how bad the French are in arming this complete anus of a man ("Remember they are the bastards that sold this tyrant a breeder reactor."), while claiming the US has has been almost perfect in its handling of Iraq over the Last 30 years ("but we do not supply advanced weapons to despots") and here's hard evidence the US started Saddam's biological weapons program, which you dismiss with a "poor judgement" and a "the US never supplied the equipment to make large quantities of these agents".
Its weak, very weak.

Oh...the cultures was sent by both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (government)
and the American Type Culture Collection (approved by the government). The usatoday article lists who sent what.

Askan
Not supporting the arming of despots by anyone.<hr /></blockquote>You seem to have skipped the Last part. America, England and Australia are putting an end to this jerk. What art the rest doing? Many are protecting their Iraqi cash cow.

Thermodyne

March 21st, 2003, 05:29 AM

LMAO Again

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/saddam_ballot.jpg

QuarianRex

March 21st, 2003, 05:44 AM

Take a look here. Any interesting parallels?

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm

Askan Nightbringer

March 21st, 2003, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
You seem to have skipped the Last part. America, England and Australia are putting an end to this jerk. What art the rest doing? Many are protecting their Iraqi cash cow.*sigh* You seem to keep avoiding my point. So I'll put it in bold and won't mention anything else.
The USA had a hand in the making of Saddam, just like France (which you like to target) and other countries. If your going to rave about how the French gave him this, and the French gave him that then you have to acknowledge the US's part in making of the Frankenstein.

Askan

mac5732

March 21st, 2003, 07:21 AM

Everyone keeps watching Iraq well IMHO only, the real country to watch, which again IMHO is a lot more radical, deadly, and better trained and armed is North Korea. And they are a lot more capable of using mass destruction weapons, bio, chemical, a-bomb, then even Saddam. Their country is even more repressive then Iraq. They are by far the more dangerous of the two countries.

In regards to who helped who, who backed who, etc, at this point is mute. Everyone makes mistakes even the US when they decide to back a specific leader/country. Remember at one time we backed and supported Castro and look where that led. So in conclusion, All countries make mistakes and one never knows how it will eventually turn out. The problem now is, how to undo what was done.

Is France at fault, sure, is the US at fault, yep, is the UN at fault, yep again. Saddam should have been dealt with years ago even before Desert Storm. The UN is a paper pussy cat who can't enforce or fails to enforce its own resolutions.

My 2 cents, I hope I didn't offend anyone, don't mean to, just IMHO

just some ideas Mac

Wizarc

March 21st, 2003, 07:29 AM

Maybe they are using Iraq for practice before they move on Korea. Maybe they are hoping to invoke Korea to do something stupid.

Just some observational opinions.

solops

March 21st, 2003, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by TerranC:
Goddamn it, solops, It's North Korea, not Korea. Look at my location (the "From" below my post) to see why that matters.

Also, a question to all you war buffs: can you tell me how the Iraqis managed to get french mirages?

Edit: typing mistakes...North Korea, yes. I would point out that the two Koreas together comprise the two largest parts of a single, ongoing Korean problem, as far as I am concerned. Besides, I want our people watching both sides of the DMZ. Some of the South Koreans seem to be acting strangely. I was gratified to see that Rumsfeld was pulling US forces back from the DMZ. Now the paltry 37000 US troops in SOUTH Korea will not get overrun in the initial rush of the North Korean offensive.

As far as the Mirages go, the French sold them to them :-) Actually, Iraq had some in the first Gulf war. Maybe some of those that were flown to Iran to escape the Allies were given back? I do remember that the Iraqi air defense system was French built and was back in operation shortly after the first Gulf war. Those French outfits must give really good maintenance service, eh?

[ March 21, 2003, 05:39: Message edited by: solops ]

Kamog

March 21st, 2003, 07:44 AM

I wonder why the stock market has been going up these Last few days? Before the war started, the market was dropping and it was thought that this was because people were worried that there's going to be a war. Now that it has begun, the market is going up, I don't understand. They're saying that it's going up because people think that the war is going to be short. The stock market seems to make no sense. Oil prices going up and down don't seem to make sense either?

solops

March 21st, 2003, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by solops:
I was thinking more in terms of assassination via sniper or smart bomb. Perhaps even a bounty or bribe. Fomenting unrest in a police state like Iraq is futile.

As far as the rebellions after the first Gulf war, that was a no-go. The US's allies did not want Saddam out due to fear of the Iranians. Therefore Iraq proper was not entered and the Republican Guard was allowed to escape so that it could maintain Saddam in power. I guess they hoped he'd be chastened.

I would expect that in a year or three Saddam could be eliminated, if the US was both serious and secretive enough. Or perhaps not.They weren't paying for a quiet arrest, you know. The idea was exactly what you suggest, to foment a military coup. Guns, grenades, shrapnel. Nasty stuff. And every officer they recruited was caught. Some Colonel in the Iraqi intelligence services would pick up the fancy encrypted satellite phone they had given their chosen 'covert operative' to keep in touch with and tell them he had been arrested. *click* End of coup attempt. The Iraqi intelligence services are good. After many attempts they have decided to get rid of Saddam the hard way.<hr /></blockquote>Oh, I don't disagree. But I think a military coup or popular uprising are both low probability events, for the reason you give. Assassination by anyone (sniper, son, whatever) or death by smart bomb, much better odds over a longer term, especially given the intel surveillance we have now. Clinton never really tried. I think all of the above should have been pushed longer and harder....much cheaper and more justifiable (or deniable)in all ways than a war.

[ March 21, 2003, 06:09: Message edited by: solops ]

solops

March 21st, 2003, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Thermodyne:
[qb]The USA had a hand in the making of Saddam, just like France (which you like to target) and other countries. If your going to rave about how the French gave him this, and the French gave him that then you have to acknowledge the US's part in making of the Frankenstein.

AskanWell, sure, what's to argue? After the USSR cut off aid to Iraq, we had to support Saddam in order to satisfy our regional Arab allies (Saudi, Kuwait, et al) who saw Iraq as a bulwark against the fundamentalist Muslim regime in Iran (just a bunch of imperialistic Persians, as far as the Arabs were concerned). Saddam was a tyrant with germs and chems, but he was on our side...sort of. Then he made nice with the Iranians and went shopping in Kuwait and everyone agreed that it was sad that he was now a Bad tyrant. But, I suspect that the reticence of our regional Arab allies in the current situation is still due to fear of the Persian Iranians and the hopes that Iraq could be maintained as a buffer. That hope is dust and it will be interesting to see how we handle the Iranian-Arab tensions that will surface after this is over.

solops

March 21st, 2003, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Kamog:
I wonder why the stock market has been going up these Last few days? Before the war started, the market was dropping and it was thought that this was because people were worried that there's going to be a war. Now that it has begun, the market is going up, I don't understand. They're saying that it's going up because people think that the war is going to be short. The stock market seems to make no sense. Oil prices going up and down don't seem to make sense either?As far as oil prices go, the problem now is primarily due to the unsettled situation in Venezuela. The Iraqi situation simply exacerbates it. Once the Iraqi war is settled prices will probably drop a bit. Until they do, there is little incentive for the Venezuelan government to completely settle the strike, since they are making more money with less production given the high prices. When lower prices result from increased Iraqi production, the Venezuelans will probably settle up the strike completely to raise production and maintain cash flow. Then oil prices will really drop some. There will be no relief from the US domestic industry. Prospects are scarcer than ever and those that are drilled have lower reserves and shorter lives than ever before, on average. Also, the industry could mobilise 4100 rigs in 1981. Now we bust a gut to field 900. To get 1300 in operation means some real junk is deployed and costs skyrocket.

Mephisto

March 21st, 2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
The US is not overly picky about who we sell to, but we do not supply advanced weapons to despots.I wonder who sold the Stinger Ground to Air missile system to the Taliban against the Soviets...

geoschmo

March 21st, 2003, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Mephisto:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Thermodyne:
The US is not overly picky about who we sell to, but we do not supply advanced weapons to despots.I wonder who sold the Stinger Ground to Air missile system to the Taliban against the Soviets...<hr /></blockquote>Technically we didn't supply anything to the Taliban. They pretty much hated us from the start. We did supply a lot of weapons to the Mujahadeen and I'm sure many of them were still laying around when the Taliban came to power. And certainly a lot of former Mujahdeen members joined the Taliban and took their US supplied weapons with them. That's the thing about supplying weapons to your allies. Sometimes they don't stay your allies.

Geoschmo

tbontob

March 21st, 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
The Stingers are not all that advanced, and it should also be noted that without maintenance, they spoil in storage. This was built into them from the start.I didn't know that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And there I was, thinking that all those stingers were floating around in the international scene, just waiting for someone to use them against civilian aircraft.

When the US first started giving them to the Afgan freedom fighters almost two decades ago, I felt the stingers would become a serious problem.

Now I understand why remarkably few civilian aircraft were destroyed by stingers. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Kudos to the U.S. for realizing their potential danger in the long term.

Mephisto

March 21st, 2003, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
The Stingers are not all that advanced,...Go tell the Soviets. They will like to hear how they lost against inferior weapons�

Back then we armed lots of people, but not with frontline aircraft, and not with advanced chemical plants and reactors.Of course not, the Iranians build their own F-14s I guess. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Thermo, any major power in the world sells weapon to other states and the US does not deserve more bashing for it then other weapon selling nation. But saying the US does not sell high tech weapons to dictators and 3-World-nations is just plain wrong.

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
What we are saying is that the US did not do it for direct profit. Our interests were always strategic.And you think that's any different for France? Please!

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
What were the interests of France, beyond lining there pockets with Iraqi cash?I'm not Chirac so I cannot tell you but I can guess: Keeping the only remaining superpower from gaining the oil of the Iraq which could be used to blackmail France, Europe and every industry nation (think Japan) into anything if they want to avoid economic havoc. Limiting the US influcence in the middle east. Arming Iraq to counter Iran, Turkey and Jordan. Gain influence on Saddam to get his oil instead of the US. Just out of my head, there may be many more interests.

Originally posted by Perrin:
France was trying to hide their mistakes by blocking the military action.Huh? It is public knowledge! France never ever said they did not sell weapons to Iraq. Not even once. Everybody knows it! It's only stupid to deny something everybody knows and the French are really not stupid.

Perrin

March 21st, 2003, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Mephisto:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Perrin:
France was trying to hide their mistakes by blocking the military action.Huh? It is public knowledge! France never ever said they did not sell weapons to Iraq. Not even once. Everybody knows it! It's only stupid to deny something everybody knows and the French are really not stupid.<hr /></blockquote>I was speaking of their suspected violations of the UN sanctions. Which was inferred by the references of doing things for Iraqi cash.

[ March 21, 2003, 13:49: Message edited by: Perrin ]

Aloofi

March 21st, 2003, 03:58 PM

Iraki joke:

-How many American planes can be shot down by anti-aircraft fire?
-None if it doesn't happen within CNN range.

geoschmo

March 21st, 2003, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
In response to Aloofi's comments:

Yes, Saddam does try very hard to portray himself to his people as a noble, heroic and righteous ruler who cares for his country. I don't know how many of them (if any) actually believe him.

For a look into the mind of an iraqi citzen, take a look at this site. (http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/) I think the URL was originally posted here by someone else. As far as I know it's genuine.

It's a blog by an iraqi, being written day to day right now. The guy is educated and observant, and seems to be under no illusions about the nature of Saddam. All the same, he doesn't seem to regard George Bush as his liberator. It's an interesting read, anyway. Take a look.You all should check out this website dogscoff mentioned a while back. The guy is still posting suprisingly, and it gives a very interesting perspective on what is going on.

Here's the link again. (http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/)

Geoeschmo

Aloofi

March 21st, 2003, 04:13 PM

That link doesn't work.
That Daer name sounds like that good o'l city, long Daer, in Middle Earth...... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

geoschmo

March 21st, 2003, 04:31 PM

Alloofi, the link works fine. Not sure why you don't get it. Could your ISP be blocking it or something maybe?

Geoschmo

Aloofi

March 21st, 2003, 04:33 PM

Peace in our time!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/images/0315-05.jpg

Aloofi

March 21st, 2003, 04:41 PM

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/images/0321-01.jpg

"A U.S. Marine replaces the Iraqi flag at the entrance to Iraq's main port of Umm Qasr on March 21, 2003 with the Stars and Stripes and the flag of the Marine Corps. Marines briefly raised the U.S. flag over Umm Qasr after facing tougher than expected resistance in and around the southern Iraq port. Some time later, the flag was removed. No reason was given for the decision.. (Desmond Boylan/Reuters) "

geoschmo

March 21st, 2003, 04:56 PM

The decision to take the flag down was the same as the reason the coalition forces were ordered not to prominantly display US flags on their battle vehicles. It's in deferance to the sensibilities of the Iraqi citizens. Since this isn't a war about taking and keeping ground in the name of the US, but about removing the current regime from power and allowing the Iraqi's to rule themselves.

Geoschmo

PsychoTechFreak

March 21st, 2003, 05:11 PM

US did not do it for direct profit. Our interests were always strategic. Arms export, still one of the most commanding state-controlled component and everyone is in-the-game. It's questionable if it can ever be classified into profit, help for self-defense or just power politics.
Every once in a while it seems to be necessary to shed kilo gallons of blood to keep the "game" running, it's too sad. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Mephisto

March 21st, 2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
You all should check out this website dogscoff mentioned a while back. The guy is still posting suprisingly, and it gives a very interesting perspective on what is going on.
Here's the link again. (http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/)
GeoeschmoI read it every day since dogscoff posted it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

geoschmo

March 21st, 2003, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
I can only hope that we will freeze France out of the reconstruction that will follow.I think this would be a monumental mistake. I believe once the Coalition has removed Sadaam from power (If they haven't already) and we are able to truely and honestly catalogue the WMD that have been hidden, and speak honestly and openly with the Iraqi scientists and other citizens who will no longer fear reprisals from their government, the world will gain a new perspective of the events. They may never admit it, and they may remain sincerly in opposition to the timing or the manner with which we did it. But seeing the eveidence in the light of day will at least help them to understand why we felt the urgency.

The French have already said that if the Iraqi's use chem/bio weapons during the course of the war it will change things for them. If they aren't used I believe it will be because the coalition prevented it, or the Iraqi's didn't follow those orders. Not because the chem/bio weapons weren't available.

The reconstruction should involve everybody, even those opposed to the war. In that way we can start the process of reconstructing our relations as well as with the Iraqi nation.

Geoschmo

Thermodyne

March 21st, 2003, 07:29 PM

This will take a little time to read and digest. But in a nut shell is shows who ordered how much from whom. If you want to skip the world stuff, go to about page 34 for the gulf region.

http://www.csis.org/gulf/reports/trendsarmsexpgulfme.pdf

Atrocities

March 21st, 2003, 07:56 PM

Any thoughts on what Turkey might do with its troops poised to invade?

I just heard about it on Fox News Channel or was it MSNBC?

Turkey is talking about invading Iraq now. Not good at all.

Askan Nightbringer

March 21st, 2003, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
No one is saying that the US was not partially responsible for this mess. What we are saying is that the US did not do it for direct profit. Our interests were always strategic. As were the interests of the Soviets. What were the interests of France, beyond lining there pockets with Iraqi cash? The US spent billions containing Soviet Communism; France made a billion arming the third world. And then had the audacity to try and protect one of the most evil men in the world. All for cash! America will have its way in Iraq, could be easy, could be hard, but we will have our way. I can only hope that we will freeze France out of the reconstruction that will follow.Oh, it was strategic, that makes me feel alot better. It obviously was strategic to support Soharto while he killed a million of his population, strategic to arm and equip the Contras to kill 30,000 of their countrymen, strategic to kill a couple of mill in Indochina, strategic to topple a democratic government in Chile, strategic to train/equip Osama and his mates to kill the Russian invaders. Like, if all that was done for nothing but profit it would make a huge difference. All those strategic corpses must be feeling alot better now.

So is the invasion of Iraq about justice, liberation and threat of terrorist attack or is is just another strategic move in the never ending quest for complete US dominance?

There were direct interventions in Italy and France, and we outright fixed an election in Australia back in the sixties.Are you defending the indefensible?

Askan

Askan Nightbringer

March 21st, 2003, 07:58 PM

geoschmo

March 21st, 2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Any thoughts on what Turkey might do with its troops poised to invade?

I just heard about it on Fox News Channel or was it MSNBC?

Turkey is talking about invading Iraq now. Not good at all.Hopefully they won't move in. The US told them doing so could result in friendly fire incidents and distract from the course of the ongoing battle. I believe the US intends to rely on Iraqi Kurdish forces in the north. They can't exactly do that if the Turks come in guns blazing.

Anyway, becasue of this Turky has withdrawn the premission to use their airspace that had been approved yesterday.

Geoschmo

[ March 21, 2003, 18:07: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

jimbob

March 21st, 2003, 08:35 PM

Okay, here's what I think:

The USA is a bunch of b*stards because they kept the whole world from becoming communist through the 60 - 80s. You don't like what they did in helping to create despots?... perhaps you'd have prefered a nuclear war instead of the cold one?? Or maybe the US and UK should have just rolled over and let the USSR have their way across the globe.
The USSR was a bunch of b*stards too, again for setting up nasty regimes in their attempt make the entire world communist. A million murders here and a million slaughters there adds up. Call me stupid, but I still think Pinoche and Saddam are the lesser of two evils when compared to world annihilation. Now that the cold war is over we can attempt to wash our hands of all the nastinesses that happened, but to Regan, Thatcher, John-Paul, and Gorbechevs (sp) credit they finally created a world that could stop with the clandenstine power/murder games.

Hind-sight is said to be 20/20, but the politicians of the era did not have the advantage of our hind-sight! They did what they thought could improve the world (to their world view) with the knowledge they had. It wasn't their fault that they were not omnicient!

In summary, I think that some people may be engaged in critisizim out of context... I think there may be just a hint of reconstructionism going on here. sure Saddam is nasty horrible bad bad bad, both now and yesterday. But can you imagine what the world would be like if the USSR had overtaken those oilfields? Can you imagine what the radiation levels across the world would be like right now if the USA and USSR got into a direct fight over the middle east instead of letting their proxy states do the fighting? As much as I hate to say it, men like Saddam had their uses at one point in history, but now we are in a new era, with a different set of problems and solutions. It's very unfair to apply todays realities to yesterday however...

Aloofi

March 21st, 2003, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by jimbob:

As much as I hate to say it, men like Saddam had their uses at one point in history, but now we are in a new era, with a different set of problems and solutions. It's very unfair to apply todays realities to yesterday however...And this is exactly why you gotta be very stupid to trust the US. Their "set of problems and solutions" might change, and today's allies might become tomorrow enemies.
And let's not talk of the long number of allies and friends that the US have abandoned:
-South Viet Nam
-Chile
-Argentine
-Iran
-Philipines
-South Africa

And don't forget the unfullfilled promises to the Republic of Russia.......

Now next in the list is Israel.

Atrocities

March 21st, 2003, 09:05 PM

Turkey wants the northern Iraq oil fields. Why else act so stupidly.

Aloofi

March 21st, 2003, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Turkey wants the northern Iraq oil fields. Why else act so stupidly.gotta be. Maybe they think there's gonna be a reparting of Irak after the war or something.

Not a bad idea. Repart Irak between Turkey, Iran and Arabia.
But I don't think certain corporations would like something like this.

jimbob

March 21st, 2003, 09:17 PM

The second thing that I think:
(yeah, only two thoughts today)

The world has roundly critisized the USA (and UK) for having ulterior motives in the Iraq situation. They have been labeled Hypocrite!!, Self-Interested!!, Imperial!! And everyone wants to point out that the US helped to "create Saddam" as well. In the mean time proponents of the US action love to point out that France has some ulterior motives, to which people with anti-war leanings yell "foul! you can't hide the US motives behind they wonderful French"

I say, certainly all of those critisms are true to some degree. However, the point is not that France is bad because they sold Sadam some weapons... the point is that France is claiming the moral high road when their hands are as covered in filth as the US! For goodness sake people, the US is not the only group with self-interest at stake here... France gets oil at <$5/barrel through the food-for-oil program. They have oil contracts with Iraq ready to go as soon as the sanctions are lifted - but the contracts are with Sadam's regime. A huge percentage of the population of France is Muslim, and Chirac would really like to get re-elected. France, like many countries sells arms to developing and third world regimes. There is nothing illegal about that. Is it unethical? Yes, often it is. But name me a single country that isn't selling or buying weapons. Name me a single country that isn't selling or buying oil. Name me a single country that doesn't want to control Iraqi soil, and I'll concede to you that this is the country that is "sanitized" in this whole affair - they should be finding and executing the solution to Sadam instead of the USA.

But that nation does not exist! So I think it would be best for everyone to scrub the angry accusations of "self interest" and "ulterior motive" altogether. Everyone has self interest and ulterior motives in this affair. Once these accusations and the historical blame game (see my previous post today) are done with, we can begin to really deal with the questions:

1) should Sadam be deposed (irregardless of who should depose him)
2) how can damage to the Iraqi population and infrastructures be minimized
3) how do we "rebuild" Iraq after the war considering it multitudes of factions (ethnic and religious)
4) how do we utilize the wealth potential of Iraq to benefit the people of Iraq, not just a small elite?
5) how do we keep neighbours, such as Iran and Turkey, from gobbling up a demilitarized Iraq?

Those are, IMHO, the things that should be debated. The blame game is becoming tiresome.

Edit
Aloofi: you seem surprised or disappointed that the US does not live up to it's promises. If we step away from "shoulda coulda" however, into the mists of international politics, name me a country that does stick to it's promises! If it ain't on paper with the President's signature, it ain't a contract my friend. Dishonourable, sure! That's the way the world works though. Crying won't solve the problem, just lawyers http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ March 21, 2003, 19:20: Message edited by: jimbob ]