Iraq Issues

Gobalopper · March 5, 2003

It also helps pay for the negative impacts the war would cause to the Turkish economy. Although the next day after not allowing the US troops the stock markets there went down over 10%.

The money is not a bribe. If you are going to use a country as your staging point it makes sense to compensate them for it. You also have to realize that a lot of these countries are holding back hoping to get more from the US.

emprworm · March 5, 2003

"How lame is it to tell a poor country that you'll stop their funds if they don't support you ?"

no it isn't. A child that turns 18 has no "claim" that his parents should have him attached to a financial umbillical chord.

If someone is ungrateful, then send them nothing. I think the US should stop sending Aid to some of these ungrateful countries. Part of that money that is getting sent is mine. Would you give your hard earned money to someone who flipped you the finger? I wouldn't. I dont know of anyone who would or should. The US is under NO OBLIGATION to spoon feed anyone. If you don't support us, then don't expect a hand out. You want some free cake? You want to eat it? Then don't think you can just cast us off. Why should we help any nation that despises us? We shouldn't. When you bite the hand that feeds you, don't expect anymore food.

Gobalopper · March 5, 2003

Another update:

Bush will keep vow on 'weeks' until war

U.S. sees mounting support for resolution

Not an oil-fired war

Iranian forces complicate war plans in Iraq

No U.N. inspectors after fall of Saddam

ANTI-WAR OR ANTI-U.S.?

COUNCIL KOOK-FEST

Time's Up

The Inscrutable Turks

The Postwar Look

What a Leader!

Woman Offers Bush Crucifixion-For-Peace Deal

emprworm · March 5, 2003

[c]wow, what a good article written by an Iranian "ANti-War or Anti-US?"

"When the Tanzanian army invaded Uganda and removed Idi Amin from power, no one marched because the United States was not involved.

When the Vietnamese army invaded Cambodia and changed the Khmer Rouge regime there, no one marched. Again, the United States was not involved.

When French troops invaded the Central African Republic and changed its regime, again no one marched.

The reason? You guessed it: America was not involved.

And what about a march in support of the Chechens? Oh, no, that won't do: The United States is not involved.

The peace movement would merit the label only if it opposed all wars, including those waged by tyrants against their own people, not just those in which America is involved.

Did it march when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran? Not at all.

Did it march when Saddam invaded Kuwait? Again: nix!

(Later, they marched, with the slogan "No Blood for Oil," when the U.S.-led coalition came to liberate Kuwait.)

Did it march when Saddam was gassing the Kurds to death? Oh, no.

Stalin died 50 years ago to the day.

But if he were around today he would have a chuckle: His peace movement remains as alive in the Western democracies as it was half a century ago.

Iranian author and journalist Amir Taheri is based in Europe. "

Acriku · March 5, 2003

Brings great points to the subject, kudos to that author :)

emprworm · March 6, 2003

yahoo message boards are very heavily pro bush

message boards

Sardauker-Kirov · March 6, 2003

Yes, because America wants to have a war with a country to suit their own needs. That means 'every' country in the world must help America with the 'holy' quest.

So, America cuts off the money of other countries, that is very needed. What has politics to do with the civilians? I guess America doesn't really sound like a land of liberty and justice with that fool Bush in the President chamber, more like a country in the words of.... "Cooperate! Or perish in hell!"

America has done things for us, but we did things for them too to allow the country to grow. I see America as a second Hitler, that controls the world through political manipulation. That's my opinion.....

Acriku · March 6, 2003

Who has a war with another country in which none of it suits their needs at all?

zamboe · March 6, 2003

Zamboe, that was weak...

You were referring about this :

USA : Students pencil in Iraq protest

You call it weak ?, hmmm, doesn't look like it, 360 schools across USA mean anything but weakness.

Check this out,

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/05/sprj.irq.rallies/index.html

Gobalopper · March 6, 2003

zamboe I think the problem with pointing out people who are against the war is that it doesn't mean much when polls show that a large majority are for war. I don't mind that people are against the war and its their right to protest but I don't think the majority of US or UK citizens are against it. You have to remember that people are more likely to protest something they disagree with then something they agree with. It also tends to be the extremists from both the left and right that organize protests like these.

As an example remember back to the Brain Terminal report from a few weeks ago where he interviewed people at the protests and most didn't seem to have a clue as to what the real issues were. All they said was Bush is illegitimite or the war was only about oil. None of them had any viable alternatives either.

zamboe · March 6, 2003

zamboe I think the problem with pointing out people who are against the war is that it doesn't mean much when polls show that a large majority are for war. I don't mind that people are against the war and its their right to protest but I don't think the majority of US or UK citizens are against it. You have to remember that people are more likely to protest something they disagree with then something they agree with. It also tends to be the extremists from both the left and right that organize protests like these.
As an example remember back to the Brain Terminal report from a few weeks ago where he interviewed people at the protests and most didn't seem to have a clue as to what the real issues were. All they said was Bush is illegitimite or the war was only about oil. None of them had any viable alternatives either.

I agree that ppl are more likely to protest something they disagree and also that there are extremists mixed between the protests, those extremists have different objectives and they just take advantage of the current crisis for a whole different purpouse. However, in extreme situations that are about to happen, like the current Iraq problem, there are also a ppl that usually don't protest and tend to live a regular life that are now protesting.

I'll put another example, the Pope, there was never during ( John Paul II ) his life as a Pope a time when he was more concern, not even in the Gulf War of 1990/1991, he was never so strong in his statments against a war, he'll be traveling to NY city (UN forum), to make a public urgent call to stop the war. So, when I see people I respect (not those extremist as you correctly mention) almost yelling for peace, I tend to give them the benefit of patience by giving all the possible chances for a peaceful solution.

SurlyPIG · March 6, 2003

You call it weak ?, hmmm, doesn't look like it, 360 schools across USA mean anything but weakness.
Check this out,
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/05/sprj.irq.rallies/index.html

Not at all what I meant. I meant that, next to Gob's overpowering collection of links referring to the travisties committed by Hussein, henceforth known as the former, your lonely little link of people in disagreement who have probably never even HEARD of the former seemed rather pathetic.

It was like "Hey look, people are dying. Families are being killed, whole towns wiped out, people are being opressed. Here is all the evidence" contrasted with "Hey look, people disagree" (for whatever reason)

It almost seems as if all those protesters in your link are supporting what Hussein does in Gob's link, doesn't it? At least, that's the impression I got.

emprworm · March 6, 2003

[c]i think it is odd how quickly these facts are forgotten. I wonder how many of these Zamboe has protested?

When the Tanzanian army invaded Uganda and removed Idi Amin from power, no one marched because the United States was not involved.

When the Vietnamese army invaded Cambodia and changed the Khmer Rouge regime there, no one marched. Again, the United States was not involved.

When French troops invaded the Central African Republic and changed its regime, again no one marched.

The reason? You guessed it: America was not involved.

And what about a march in support of the Chechens? Oh, no, that won't do: The United States is not involved.

The peace movement would merit the label only if it opposed all wars, including those waged by tyrants against their own people, not just those in which America is involved.

Did it march when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran? Not at all.

Did it march when Saddam invaded Kuwait? Again: nix!

(Later, they marched, with the slogan "No Blood for Oil," when the U.S.-led coalition came to liberate Kuwait.)

Did it march when Saddam was gassing the Kurds to death? Oh, no.

Stalin died 50 years ago to the day.

But if he were around today he would have a chuckle: His peace movement remains as alive in the Western democracies as it was half a century ago.

Iranian author and journalist Amir Taheri is based in Europe. "

Nyarlathotep · March 6, 2003

"How lame is it to tell a poor country that you'll stop their funds if they don't support you ?"
no it isn't. A child that turns 18 has no "claim" that his parents should have him attached to a financial umbillical chord.
If someone is ungrateful, then send them nothing. I think the US should stop sending Aid to some of these ungrateful countries. Part of that money that is getting sent is mine. Would you give your hard earned money to someone who flipped you the finger? I wouldn't. I dont know of anyone who would or should. The US is under NO OBLIGATION to spoon feed anyone. If you don't support us, then don't expect a hand out. You want some free cake? You want to eat it? Then don't think you can just cast us off. Why should we help any nation that despises us? We shouldn't. When you bite the hand that feeds you, don't expect anymore food.

Read what I said Emp, if the Iraq issue wasn't at hand, the US government wouldn't take these actions !! There's no way in hell you can deny that. And I didn't supply you with just the money issue.

zamboe · March 7, 2003

Another two reasons for not believing US about Iraq.

Their facts and proof are so weak that they need to spy other 6 non permanent UN SC members, if US were so sure about it's facts then they wouldn't need to spy.

Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war

And here is the memo sent by US State of Department giving orders to resume spy activities to other members of UN SC like Chile.

UUS plan to bug Security Council: the text

Gobalopper · March 7, 2003

zamboe I mentioned that earlier. There are a lot of questions about the accuracy of that so called memo.

zamboe · March 7, 2003

zamboe I mentioned that earlier. There are a lot of questions about the accuracy of that so called memo.

I know it's not brand new news.

But I posted it, since the Chilean goverment has found positive clues about it.

Miles · March 7, 2003

So, after Bush's speech tonight, the ONLY question left to answer for all of you is this:

Is Iraq complying fully with resolution 1441?

Acriku · March 7, 2003

I support Bush's war, not his religious reasons but other reasons, but jeez he knows how to drag things on and on and on and on and on and on. I couldn't handle the boredom and redundancy.

Gobalopper · March 7, 2003

It was a scripted press conference, he had to answer the questions. Its not like he could say sorry guys Acriku is finding this boring so the rest of you on the list can't ask your questions. :)

Gobalopper · March 7, 2003

And now the important news of the day. ;)

Iraq Giving Own Forces Western Uniforms in Ploy

Saddam tells troops to swim

Blair faces grilling from MTV generation about Iraq

Canoga High protest turns into looting

Bush ready but holding back for Blair's sake

Bush Phones Putin to Lobby on Iraq Vote

Blix Disputes Iraq's Claims on Biological Weapons

Battle plan for Baghdad

Bush: U.S. May Act on Iraq Without U.N.

second update:

War is being won before it begins

Why liberating Iraq is crucial to beating terrorism.

'When Will Americans Come?'

Britain's dirty secret

Troops 'told of March 17 invasion'

Pentagon: attack will be short but awesome

Pressure on US to give Iraq one last chance

Turkish military chief backs US invasion plan

Awaiting invaders, a city gathers guns and sandbags

U.N. STANDS BY AS INNOCENTS ARE SLAUGHTERED

COMING IRAQ FIGHT TIES HANDS OF SHARON

ANTI-WAR ERRORS

TOO LATE TO BACK DOWN

Bush convenes war Cabinet

'Smart' bomb use dominates

Kuwait in middle on the map, in politics

Getting Saddam is Job One

Kuwait gets set to protect oil

Powell spurns Blix, says Iraq isn't disarming

U.S. halts base modernization program in Turkey

Acriku · March 7, 2003

Maybe I can write a letter to the Pres ;)

DjCiD · March 7, 2003

And now the important news of the day. ;)
Iraq Giving Own Forces Western Uniforms in Ploy

Holy Sandworm Batman its a Dune War!

"Saddam intends to issue these uniforms to 'Fedayeen Saddam' troops who would wear them when conducting reprisals against the Iraqi people so that they could pass the atrocities off as the work of the United States and the United Kingdom."

A "fact sheet" provided by Central Command, which is headquartered in Tampa, Florida, and has responsibility for any war in Iraq, said that Fedayeen Saddam, or "Men of Sacrifice," has a strength of more than 15,000 and was founded by Saddam's son, Uday, in 1994.

Ya Haya Saddam ::)

zamboe · March 7, 2003

So, after Bush's speech tonight, the ONLY question left to answer for all of you is this:
Is Iraq complying fully with resolution 1441?

LOL. That's a tricky question.

And furthermore it's not the main question.

There has to be a discussion of what's the meaning of "serious consecuences" as stated in resolution 1441.

In the case of non fully complying, THAT DOES NOT MEAN WAR.

Gobalopper · March 7, 2003

According to Drudge:

Gertz: U.S. intelligence discovers French company selling Iraq military spare parts as recently as January... Developing...

Gertz writes for The Washington Times so it should be posted in Fridays update.

Update here is the article:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030307-545570.htm

So much for disarming.

Sign In

Iraq Issues

Recommended Posts

Gobalopper

emprworm

Gobalopper

emprworm

Acriku

emprworm

Sardauker-Kirov

Acriku

zamboe

Gobalopper

zamboe

SurlyPIG

emprworm

Nyarlathotep

zamboe

Gobalopper

zamboe

Miles

Acriku

Gobalopper

Gobalopper

Acriku

DjCiD

zamboe

Gobalopper

Join the conversation

Activity

Important Information