I have to finish my daddys war

Hobbes

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/16/iraq.htm

Fidelis

It's just on SkyNews at the moment, a Pentagon Official explaining the what's and why's.
Not very convincing, I never understand their spew anyways.
If you don't want to get shot down over Iraqi soil, then fúck off back to America.
Same for the Brits, 51st state of America.

---

Nil Desperandum

Manach

Lets review:
In the blue corner we have Mr. Bush who almost won a democratic electon.
In the blood-red corner we have Saddam, whose favourite sport seems killing his own family members and minority groups.

Saddam in the past had tried to assassinate W's paterfamilius. Therefore I don't really think the US/UK are at anything going to pack up any time soon.

---

fair is the prize and the hope is great

bugler

Why do ye sound so surprised? they've been bombing certain parts of iraq 2/3 times a week for last few yrs, just not on this scale and it cant stay front page news forever. this whole fuss will die down again.
more reviews: Bush Snr, during gulf war beseeches southern iraqis to rise up and overthrow saddam. thousands heed the call, only to find that they are abandoned and left on their own. apparently US planes flew overhead and watched while saddams forces engaged the rebels and ultimately routed them.plus anyone who has seen the footage of some of these southern iraqis being rounded up and taken away for execution b/c they attempted to oust their dictator will know what real betrayal looks like. now after his father "failed" to overthrow saddam along comes his simpleton son, is he trying to make himself look tough? who knows. but the main factors wont change.saddam will stay in power(their strengthening his grip with every strike) and the ordinary iraqi will suffer the brunt of the damage, whether its direct from bombs or indirectly from sanctions.
Iraqi civilians being killed by US/UK bombing runs? Old news.

---

Fidelis

I think they do be bombing the radar sites in the self proclaimed "no fly zone" on a daily basis since operation Desert Fox in '98.

Those sorties require no presidential authorisation, however this time the strikes were aimed at installations as close as 5 miles from Baghdad. These did require Dubya's authorisation.
The thing is, the US attacked these sites because they were supposedly enhancing the accuracy of missiles fired within the "no fly zone", obviously Saddam has a bit of cash to spend on upgrading his weapons systems for the fun of it, or maybe for some other hidden agenda ?

One thing is for sure though, the Americans got scared that maybe they'd actually lose a plane and have to justify their presence there, so they savaged the sites with SLAM's I think they were. Big dirty stand-off missiles which they fired from within the "no fly zone".
You're damn right though Bug, this will most certainly die down, as it more or less has already.

---

Nil Desperandum

Paladin

Saddam Hussein is an evil co<k sucking son of a b1tch that imho deserves to die more than almost any other human being in the world atm. He is a dirty sadistic little **** on a power trip. The atrocities he is responsible are already dispicable, and if he had the same military dominance Hitler had in europe in ww2 I shudder to think what he would do.
As it is, I wouldnt put it past him to use biological\chemical\nuclear weapons if he had them and the opportunity to use them.
Lets face it, he is nuts enuff to do it.

In the end of the day it IS the average iraqi civilian that is suffering most because of him. Id support (morally) someone popping him off. It would save countless lives in the long run.

Fidelis

Paladin, do you see American planes patrolling Pakistani or Indian terretories due to mass killings ?
No.
Why?
Because the Americans aren't stupid enough to mess with 3rd World countries that possess nuclear weapons.
Simple.

---

Nil Desperandum

Paladin

Which is why I am damn glad they are there preventing him from getting any nuclear/biological weapons.

They really do it cause of the oil really, but big ****ing deal.
They are doing it, and regardless of the reason (oil or humanitarian), I support it because Saddam is too dangerous to be left alone.

Winning Hand

I find it funny they justify it by calling it a "defensive measure", my foot, all they were doing was painting the planes who were patrolling inside iraqi territory.



[This message has been edited by Winning Hand (edited 19-02-2001).]

bugler

US/UK dont really want Saddam out of power. it gives them a reason to justify their presence in the gulf.Saddam was originally the west's man, he had their support when cold war paranoia was still goin on,and started the war with iran with the blessing of the the western powers.then of course he invaded kuwait......not good move because unlike Iran, Kuwait is a US pawn(like Israel).dont be fooled into thinking the west want saddam out of power, and dont think for a second that the lives of iraqi civilians mean anything to them.

---

[This message has been edited by bugler (edited 22-02-2001).]

C B

[interesting statistical project]

try run a corelation between negative press headlines in the US and bombings of "faraway" places.

[/interesting statistical project]

--Kaiser--

- Because of the Gulf War , in which a third world country took on the might of a united first world, saddam hussein is seen as a hero in most third world and especially Islam countries.

- America is extremly biased against the arabs, which is why it is always supporting the Israelis and bombing the arabs, and also why islam terrorists target the US.

- The UN sanctions against Iraq are not hurting Saddam at all, but thousands of children die every year because they have no food or medical supplies, also people getting cancer off depleted uranium shell casings, oh yes and all the people they bomb every few months.

- Oh by the way, i dont support Saddam, but i believe he was justified in invading kuwait, about a hundred years ago, it was part of iraq, but it was very rich in oil, so the British seperated it from Iraq as they thought Iraq would become too powerful.

TwoShedsJackson

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by --Kaiser--:
- Oh by the way, i dont support Saddam, but i believe he was justified in invading kuwait, about a hundred years ago, it was part of iraq, but it was very rich in oil, so the British seperated it from Iraq as they thought Iraq would become too powerful.

</font>

Ah no sorry, no matter what the previous history may be there is no excuse for invading another independent country.

Maybe the US should realise that too.

Winning Hand

Yeah I spose my last post was a bit much but i had a long day and had just finished nreading a profile on this Sharon fella. Not a very nice fella.

[interesting stastic] The Israelies have killed @400 palestinians in the last five months [/interesting stastic]


[This message has been edited by Winning Hand (edited 19-02-2001).]

Celt

Kaiser, in that case, italy should compromise most of europe, bla bla bla bla bla

the fnj

I am personally tired of the American big brother attitude. They think it's their job to police the world. The point was already made that Saddam is their to justify America's war budget. They need to have bad guys around.

Also the Americans think the can fight a sterile war against Iraq. The Americans don't release that war does not have rules or conventions. The greatest fu<k up was the Veitnam war. They got hammered by nothing more than spearman. The Americans tried to fight a war cleanly. The had to deal with public opinion. They should have won that war in six months. It may not have been pretty but it's a better alternative then sending thousands of young Americans off to die. It was the American army who beat the Japanesse Impereal Gaurd (somthing like that) probably the most efective jungle fighting army's ever.

It will come to a stage were they either have to fight a war or Saddam is going to do somthing that everybody will regret. This issue should have ended during the gulf war. Had America sent ground troops into Bagdad they could have replace Saddam with a puppet leader. But once again their fear of fighting a war stopped them. As was pointed out the let the rebels get massacared.

Saddam is wrong but America are to blame for him being in power.

---

Clan Acid

neuro-praxis

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by The FANJ:
I am personally tired of the American big brother attitude. They think it's their job to police the world. </font>

I understand the points you have made after this statement, but I disagree on that one. It would be rather different if we were invaded (for God knows what reason) and the US stepped in to help. Look at what Bill did for the peace process? And weren't NATO justified for raining on Milosovic's parade in his little reign of terror in Kosovo? (Although ethnic cleansing is *still* going on in a dozen places all over the world, I know.)

I think it is the responsibility of the people who have the power to do what they can to assist helpless nations. Or stupid nations, like ourselves.

Winning Hand

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by --Kaiser--:

also people getting cancer off depleted uranium shell casings,
</font>

Great to see that the media hype has gotten to one person. Here is a (basically accurate) rundown on uranium as a weapon.
1. 99.8% of uranium is stable. Depleted uranium has lost most of the 0.2% of the radioactive stuff, hence the term depleted.
2. Uranium is extremely dense making it an ideal AP round.
3. The only time there poses a danger is when the round hits and vapourises into a dust which is dangerous to inhale (god we dont want the ppl we hit with bullets to die now do we?)
4. refering to point 2 the dust settles very quickly so the only danger is directed at the ppl in the immediate vicinity of the target ( again we DONT want these ppl to be injured)
5. I think you meant shells and not the shell casings as it makes no sense to have the casings made from uranium

Thats basically it. Feel free to prove me wrong as i might have some facts wrong

---

[This message has been edited by Winning Hand (edited 20-02-2001).]

Greenbean

"I think it is the responsibility of the people who have the power to do what they can to assist helpless nations. Or stupid nations, like ourselves."

Don't ever fool yourself that the gulf war was about empathy; it was for America's defense - given that iraq expanding into the oil fields of other lands would potentially collapse its economies and trade deals and cost america alot of money. Its not uncommon for one country to invade another and nothing be done about it. First for america comes defense on a global scale, second comes helping those in trouble.

Picking on the arabs? I dunno about that - its more far-reaching than just biased bullying. Most of us live in small worlds of reality while american style capitalism has created, where we have rights and such things - but the people running america are well aware of how thin this illusion is when it comes to war.

bugler

may not be the depleted uranium winning hand, but the instance of cancer has increased dramatically in iraqi civilians, aswell as in gulf war veterans. how do u explain that?

---

DadaKopf

the reality about depleted uranium is STILL that it can lead to cancer. Even experts will admit that there's no such thing as a safe dose of radiation.

anyway, the last gulf war was nothing but an excuse to hold an international superpowers arms exposition. they tested that deathtrap, the Bradbury, as well as anti-nerve gas agents on troops {some saying that the soldiers were not told about it}. What's more scary is the size f the military-industrial complex in europe now.

When all the debate was going on about partnership for Peace, nobody realised that in fact, it was more the creation of a huge big american arms supermarket than an effort to stablise eastern europe. think about it, with so many different armies throughout europe, the technology must all be compatible, such as shell sizes, radio frequencies and so on. this simply implied that the americans could sell their arms to europe as much as the french, germans and british could sell their toys to eastern europe.

so when you look at globalisation, it's not just starbucks - its the globalisation of weapons, war and destruction and it suits George W. to keep Sadam in power because it generates the fear of chemical retaliation which, in turn, justifies a need to build and sell all these weapons.

it's sick.

---

"I collect spores, moulds and fungus."

Winning Hand

"may not be the depleted uranium winning hand, but the instance of cancer has increased dramatically in iraqi civilians, aswell as in gulf war veterans. how do u explain that?"

afaik sadamn has an unhealthy obsession with chemical weapons.Cancer being such a generic term and all means any mixture of chemicals can cause it and you can bet sadamn has found most of the correct mixtures.

Also depleted uranium wouldnt explain the cancer in iraqi civilians because the allies never reached baghdad in the gulf war so they would never have fired the shells within a million miles of where most of the civvies lived

[This message has been edited by Winning Hand (edited 22-02-2001).]

Clintons Cat

should of finished the job 10 years ago,
10 years of enforcing a no fly zone
yet Sadamn can send his tanks and troops into the zone with impunity,
Figure that out.
It Sucks.
Stick A Guided Missile Up His Exhaust Pipe
And call it A Day

Fidelis

Funny you should mention guided missiles.
The yanks employed a bomb from the AGM family of weapons, a Stand-Off weapon.
Only 2 years old and when they were used in 'self-defence' a week ago, they all vered to the left of their designated target
Some only missed by tens of yards, others by hundreds of yards.
The Americans blame it on a software glich.
Unlimited finances for missile development and research and they can't make a bomb go straight.

---

Nil Desperandum

the fnj

If a america are needed to police the world they should police the whole world and not just the countries that have a economic or political advantage to America. Pakistan and India are kicking the crap out of each other but I don't the American's rushing in! Same in East Timor. Now there is a case of the big oppressing the small and again the American war machine was no where to be seen. Iraq are in a similar situation that we have to face with the north. The lost land and want it back.

PS Just to clear somthing up I don't agree with what Saddam is doing in Iraq nor do I agree with hardline republicans in the north.

---

Clan Acid

Clintons Cat

Well if the US is the number1 enemy of the Islamic world what does that make russia with regards to Afganistan and Chechenia?
Anyone seen pictures of Grozny recently?
No well maybe because thats because the russians refuse to allow journalists into the area.
Further more ask yourself why do the Saudis,Turks and Kuwaitis allow Americans and British to use their bases to purse the no fly zone policy.They have a choice and in the case of the recent strikes i beleive the Saudis refused to allow planes based on their soil to participate.Hardly the actions of a puppet state.

--Kaiser--

Hmmm, i read in a paper a few days ago about a iraqi scientist who claims that iraq has already tested its nuclear bomb, and has up to NINE nuclear weapons.Maybe its not true, but nothing he said has been disproved so far.
If it is true, America should back off from its bombing raids pretty fu[king soon i should think, if it wants to see israel again.

Draco

Remember Israel has nukes too. If Saddam starts throwing them around the place there won't be an Iraq either.

Canaboid

Yeah saw that in the Sunday times. Theres a programme on Sunday night about it. The proof is there but any time the researcher asks NATO they say "NO silly man, now go away."

Baz_

could make for an interesting war

*me is very worried*

Yossarian

What is the proof??

TwoShedsJackson

Israel does indeed have nuclear weapons and is also the only country in the world which has stated that it will use them to defend itself in the event of a future invasion/war.

All other countries at least profess (falsely in my opinion) that they would never launch first.

As for Dubya, he's now taken to stating that some religions e.g. Wiccan/earth religions are less 'useful' than others - so much for seperation of Church and State.

Kegser

The only reasons the UK and the USA are so interested in Iraq are because;

a) Saddam is a known psychopath and could very well launch a few chemical warheads up their *******s.

b) He's sitting in a position of power very near to some oil rich countries; and he's already proved he's not afraid to try and take hold of the oil fields.

If they had never intervened; what do you think would be happening at this very moment? Think about it.

bugler

as far as i know the increase in cancer isnt only in areas where saddam used chemical weapons....

Clintons Cat

so sadamn has nukes?
even he can distinguish between gassing a few kurds and iranians and mutually assured destruction,if he wanted to destroy isrealm he would of stuck chemical warheads on the scuds during the war,
Sadamn is a gambler but even he knows when the deck is stacked against him.

adnans

Interesting topic on current news... took some time out and sat in front of the tv box and i happened to stumble on a tv programme on BBC2 called "Langan Behind the Lines", by a reporter called Sean Langan, last night's episode was called Saddams Show.

the whole time he was in Iraq, he had government people fallowing him as he went through the iraq.they told him that he was not allowed to talk to any "simple, naive" people (ordinary folk like you and me). this simply shows us the state of fear that the iraqi people are in at the moment thanks to Mr. President, saddam.

next episode is on the Israeli/Palestinian situation.

for more info check out http://www.bbc.co.uk/alert/spotlight/cou_0222_langa.shtml

adnans

Yossarian

i thought Isreal had always denied/remained silent about whether they had Nukes or not. I know they engaged in joint research with SA on the subject.
I was wondering what evidence there was that Iraq had tested nuclear weapons.

Belisarius

*heheh..just found the Humanities board , Political Heaven*

To Adnans Nobodies saying Sadams a nice guy , but hes no worse than any other 3rd world dictator , the difference is between 3rd world despotism X and Iraq is that Despotism X doesnt have to worry about The Combined power of the western world bombing thier country on an Ad-hock basis "In the name of peace" the Iraqi people does and they bear the brunt .


To Yoss and all the others , Iraq nowhere near nuclear capacity,I mean NOWHERE , theyre . And any serious Chemical warfare capacity ,that was crippled in Desert storm . Just to put it in context , heres a quick question

How is the worlds largest holder of Chemical weapons

The USofA thats who...and you dont see the UN inspecting theyre Caches do you?

adnans

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Belisarius:
*heheh..just found the Humanities board , Political Heaven*</font>

same here, bless

the only thing im sure of then is that:
sadam = madyoke (and this is not a funny madyoke at all, this is the bad version.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The USofA thats who...and you dont see the UN inspecting theyre Caches do you?</font>

at least we can trust the US with those chemicals (to certain points, in moderation), but to trust a madman with a bunch of poisonous gasses and whathaveyounot is a different story altoghether.

adnans

Belisarius

Can we trust them ? When out of boredom they go on the International equivelent of good old fashioned american Deer Hunt against the nearest Country around
Who are they of all people to go around telling Iraq what to do *Apart from being the only world superpower I mean ...Ethically speaking *.
Whats really gauling though is that they never finish things so we can commit them to the past and treat them as errors...they just leave em dangling. I mean ten years on and the Entire military Forces of the western world are still bombing the same Arab backwater . Id be happy if they finished Sadam off in the early 90s , whatever theyre reasons . At least then the real victims * The children...err Iraqi people * would be able to get on with it

---

Time waits for No man ...except Bob MaClean the Sex Machine

Canaboid

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">To Yoss and all the others , Iraq nowhere near nuclear capacity,I mean NOWHERE
The USofA thats who...and you dont see the UN inspecting theyre Caches do you?</font>

How do you know ? South African scientists admitted selling highly enriched uranium to Iraq from a facility which they claimed never funtioned properly or to full productivity, but which turns out was running at full capacity for several years and producing a lot more uranium than they admitted. This was sold on the black market to countries like Iraq, Pakistan and probably whoever else had the necessary cash.

azezil

ordinarily i would say who the hell do the americans n britts think they are but in this case i think until the threat is passed they should continue they're campaign!

---

"just because ur not paraniod, doesn't mean they're not after u!"

Celt

Humphh, iveforgotten my opinion ffs!
Oh wait it is this, the old maxim,"History is written by the victors most likely applies here.