Look look! He's dooing it again! Help I'm being repressed!



Funny that. He has not said anything to contradict you. I think he is holding back not wanting to incur much of the collective internationa irrational wrath. Pile it on me baby.



I think Michael More is funny. But he only goes so far. And I would not be caught dead basing any of my beliefs on him. Because no matter how much of it he believes it is 100% sattire and often childish behavior. Just so you know.



Uh hu. Sure then why have I yet to see a good one? It has all been American bashing with pats on the back to your buds. "Now that's showing those dirty, stinking, evil americans." Good argument. Don't make me bust a gutt. You guys have spent the entire thread dancing around the core argument. "The Americans are evil because they did this and this then. And that and the other thing that other time" I have a better chance at slots the good ole one arm bandid than having any one of you delivering a good on topic argument.



Pot calling the kettle black? Yes folks we have a winner. Look in the mirror my frined. LOL



It's not over yet. Hold your critiques till the end. Just tell me why you and the UN were not the ones to do it? The UN has failed. You have failed. Cmon' tell me how evil Americans are baby! Just whatever you do; don't look at yourself. "Objects in mirror may be more hypocritical than they seem."

@Neo Neko:
Did you read my reply to your next-to-last post? The one where you said that you don't consume oil from the middle east.
I have a bad connection at the moment and I got screwed up. So it was posted BEFORE it. Read it please. Then, feel free to consider me a hypocrit.

Just went away for a few hours and.. wow ! three more pages ?!?
I know being late often means bringing obsolete contributions, but here's an answer for you JohnV.

Ok, I think __random__ brought up accurate info here: it doesn't necessarily take a Scud to [edit: slightly] exceed a 90-mile range. [edit] Thus my basic deduction that possibly, no Scuds were (yet) fired. [/edit]

As a matter of fact, missiles are often much "easier" to intercept than to positively identify..

For reference, the toughest ones that one would possibly find in the hands of Iraqi regime, is Al Samoud 2 - with a reported expected range of 450 miles. No evidence yet (I think) about their presence.

Yes. But if I pay 1/5th the price to buy oil produced in the US and by US companies with next to nothing going to the middle east. How do I stand in comparrison to people elsewhere who pay 5x solely for opec middle eastern oil?

Oh and you are still every bit the hypocrite I am. I am still not a holier than though like the most of you. I am just a human and your equal. Oh and the reason we pay a bit less than the international community...... yes we buy in bulk. But we also have our own sources. Think about that for a while. Mind bending no? That's right. It is not solely because of ficticious warmongering and occupation as you would have people believe. There are much more reasonable explanations that you could never considder.

@Neo Neko:
No, I think you missed my reply, so here it is again:



Careful, dude. I am Mexican. My people are in your country, in your military (10% last time I cheched), our economies, cultures and goverments are so closelly bounded together that we are just beginning to understand it. Whatever happens to you, whatever your fate is, it will surely be ours too. We have no business in Iraq, we have business in Ametica. We are your friends. And you would expect a friend to tell you when you feel he is taking a wrong turn, right?
Going into this war alone, in such a hurry, without the REAL support from those nations that matter (not the 30-50 you have managed to round up), without no clear and present danger to you is risky to say the least. And could be dreadful to a lot of people. Americans included.
That's the whole deal. The world, the UN security council, your friends tried to talk you people out of this. For your own good. Have you thought what this war will do to your economy?
We, at least in Mexico, don't hate you. Our nations have helped each other far more than a lot of nations have/will. We don't support Saddam or any of your "enemies". We support you, just no when the issue is this shady. And I personally wish this whole nonsense ends quickly and painlessly to everybody.

NOTE: Due to not-so-good connection, the post I quoted ended up just below this one. Sorry to dissapoint you, but I am not really a mind reader

I have nothing against Mexican's never said I did. But of those 10% there is a good portion that should not be here IIRC. Then again that is neither here nor there. But there are Iraqi and other nationalists in the same situation which we do have to fear.



I agree as far as Mexican Americans are concerned.



That is true for Mexico. It is to much to ask such a thing of Mexico. They have never had to act on the international stage for the most part nor have they had major international aspirations. I have been to many nice cities in Mexico. But I wish there were more we could do to help all the people of Mexico live in places like that ATM. Instead of some of the conditions I have personally seen. But Mexico is a rapidly developing nation. Much like America was over a hundred years ago. Things get better.



1. We are not alone.
2. It was over 12 years in the making. Hardly rushed.
3. Who decides who matters and who does not?
4. How can you determine clear and present danger in terms of terrorism. I think a number of illegal Iraqi nationals invading from canada and roaming around the US could be a threat. Yes the Iraqi army is not going to invade the US. But then again terrorists don't need armys. Also large armys are not always necessary to cary out military objectives.



Warning from friends is fine. But where is the UN's responsibility to do what they say? That has alot to do with my reasons.



Yes. Gas prices go up. Gas prices go down. Bu the rest of the market for the most part is stabilising and even improving. I am not saying it is going to happen here. But war has been known to cause rapid economic growth. Though I don't think this is that kind of war.



Perhaps I am thinking in a single track or on a completely different tac. But clarrify for me where this gets shady. The UN set sanctions and resolutions against Iraq. To which Iraq was to comply. Iraq broke every one of them and the UN knows it. But the UN has shown quite clearly that they have no intention of enforcing what they say.



As do I.

I am not 100% with my government on all the specifics. But in the larger scope I am. Precision bombing is better than blind or carpet bombing. But I don't see a problem with less total bombing. Iraq has shown themselves to be much less than genuine. Though the people seem quite genuine with their gratitude at our being there. In fact we have had more to fear from ourselves over there than them so far it seems.

Well, this page seems to contain quite accurate info - and a lot of numbers. No need for earplugs here.

Now objectively, and SERIOUSLY, even after reading that and extrapolating the few blanks, I don't see how the Iraq could represent a real threat for the U.S.
See, it's a threat for neighbor countries and populations, "nothing more".

Saddam is (was?) a dangerous tyrann and deserved to be taken out. However: considering the very nature of weapons and regime in North Korea, as well as their history (in public relationship) with the U.S, I'm much more worried about them (from a U.S standpoint) !

By the way, when you start to measure security solely on the amount of dangerous weapons... no offense but, how dangerous could the U.S get ? Consider the amount of research on neurotoxines, chemical agents and shit like that.. and you'd be surprised.

Remember, for some of these substances, even a mere mistake(*) can contaminate a whole continent within days !! THIS I find worrying, and what good is that kind of research for ? Who needs it anyway. It's not an insurance, it's so dangerous that only the negative effect is probable.

(*) or rather, combination of mere mistakes and bad luck

You try to turn all this into a personal attack, while it's really not necessary. In order to make him look sillier, he must be silly already, when that's not the case. Please behave yourself.



It's easy to persuade the people that you do exactly what they would love to see happening, but instead doing the exact opposite.



I have the impression that the word "tiny" was put there for an apparent and slightly insulting reason. Talking about megalomania...



Shutting ourselves off from the world?!? I thought that it's US that is being accused for isolationism.

Damn...you really describe US authority like being Superman or Batman..."Just call for us and we will be there for you poor, suffering souls of the world...we are ready to take you out of your misery, teach you the principles of democracy and bring over a hamburger or two"...it's really unacceptable to even claim that US only has representatives from all nations on earth...you are not the only multicultural county you know...sorry, but that's the truth. Iraqi people are everywhere.

But even if that was the case, how exactly does the plan go...one day a bunch of people meet the president and politely ask him to invade their country in order to turn it into a "heaven"? (I'm being sarcastic of course). Who gives US (or anybody in general) the right to invade any country because they just don't like how things are there for some of the relatives of their citizen? It's really insane...



Every country does that or almost every country...I'm as thankful to US as to any other country that does the same thing.



I'll disappoint you...you never made me feel in any way inadequate, so sorry but if that alone was your mission you failed. I really don't understand why you want to turn a simple conversation into a game of hatred.

Things are quite simple...nobody ever said that there's a totally "innocent" country out there (well...maybe one or two out of hundreds ), but anyone's proportion of guilt or responsibility is different. At the moment US is the one who leads the race of the global dominion. After the "dissolution" of U.S.S.R., US is the only power left...that makes it more dangerous than other nations out there since its decisions affect the global balance much more. Personally I don't agree with the way its government decides to deal with some issues, especially if I feel that it could cause havoc to the entire planet. The regime has become arrogant and greedy and by their political movements you understand that they don't think that they need anybody except themselves...they are in absolute power (or they think they are)...nobody can touch them...they don't need to follow the procedures that other countries follow through UN (even of it's a weak organization)...their superiority is there and must be shown in every way.

This kind of tactic is suicidal as the past has proved through countless examples (think of Athens for instance). Learning from the past is a virtue...a virtue that the US government seems to lack.



I thought that you had left the thread long ago...you remind me of the US army...you always keep coming back for more



Peace...that's what we all miss lately.

This BBC article is about a month old, but it states that these missiles cannot reach Israel, even if the range is the supposed 110 miles (180 km) suggested by the NYT article. If you find a source that contradicts this information, please let know. I have seen a lot of erroneous reporting on the web and it's hard to find the facts.

It'll be very interesting after the war. On the otherhand USA and the rest of the coalition have mostly ignored the UN opinion and started what could be defined as a pre-emptive war, in order to take Saddam out of power. Now, regardless of what the actual reasons are, the reactions of iraqi people after the war can very well mean either very bad problems for the coalition leaders OR it could mean salvation for them.

Still, despite if the iraqi people reactions are very good, USA has started a dangerous path. Like Finland's foreign minister said: "What if India, a nuclear power, decides to make a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan which is another nuclear power? There have been fairly good reasons to suspect that some section of the intelligence agency of Pakistan has supported the terrorism in India. What will happen if India follows the example set by USA?"
Are pre-emptive strikes only allowed for USA?

In my opinion this is not at all black or white situation here, and it could be that if iraqi people reactions are very positive, it will be quite hard even for the toughest anti-war people to say that Bush is an evil, crazy president, and that the war was completely crazy and unacceptable. It'll be very interesting.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 22 2003 - 07:42 PM]
You try to turn all this into a personal attack, while it's really not necessary.[/quote]

Perhaps it is time you take a step back and look at some of the many comments that are in this thread alone which could easily be seen as bigotry against the US. Many of you have made quite clear personal attacks against not only people but a nationality. Maybe it is a missunderstanding. But with the frequency it is perpetrated I doubt it. Notice I do not ascribe to the notion that there is an evil nationality as many of you clearly do.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 22 2003 - 07:42 PM]
In order to make him look sillier, he must be silly already, when that's not the case. Please behave yourself.[/quote]

You only wish I was acting up rather than calling you out.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 22 2003 - 07:42 PM]
It's easy to persuade the people that you do exactly what they would love to see happening, but instead doing the exact opposite.[/quote]

You know we could have the second coming singing and tapdancing on water. But it is quite clear from many of the posts here that alot of people would stone him on sight simply because he might be American. I could give you any number of good things that Americans are doing. But it is clear you would not even pay attention. You would chalk it up to allusion on our par to cover up some sinister deed. I got news for you I am a human just like you. Ok not just like you. I considder myself highly less arrogant and much more open. It is clear you would turn down everything I say without a single thought as to what I said.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 22 2003 - 07:42 PM]
I have the impression that the word "tiny" was put there for an apparent and slightly insulting reason. Talking about megalomania...[/quote]

Yes yes I am an evil American. Always assume the sinister and not the simple fact that America is one of the largest most populous nations on earth.(It's a fact widely held on earth and not just by America.) Way outweighing most european countries. We are not alone there is Russia and China. How many times over could your country and population fit inside America, Russia, or China. It is a fact not a megalomaniac dream. That was a very stupid biggotous statement you just made. See folks I told you that they were making personal attacks. I never said you were bad people. I don't think I am better than you. I said we were equals. But I guess it is quite clear I was wrong and that Americans are somehow inferior to greeks. Are we "sub-human" bluewer than blue? Cmon' dehumanize us so you can justify getting your jollies on biggotry.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 22 2003 - 07:42 PM]
Shutting ourselves off from the world?!? I thought that it's US that is being accused for isolationism.[/quote]

Ok. Explain this. If we are isolationists what are we doing on the other side of the planet with friends? That is hardly alone. That is hardly isolated. Your arguments are getting real weak. No wait they have always been. Isolationist is what has been happening in the UN. Where the common attitude is "It's not our country. Don't get involved." The UN only works when you get involved. Your governments have known what has been going on in Iraq for the last 12 years. Why has no one in the un taken action other than to issue meaningless resolution.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 22 2003 - 07:42 PM]
Damn...you really describe US authority like being Superman or Batman..."Just call for us and we will be there for you poor, suffering souls of the world...we are ready to take you out of your misery, teach you the principles of democracy and bring over a hamburger or two"[/quote]

Ok that was really weak. Clearly nationalist slander. Is it really that unlikely that there could be caring human beings in America? Or does Greece have the market for caring human beings cornered? I am not saying there are not caring, understanding human beings in Greece. Just that you have shown yourself to clearly no be one of them.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 22 2003 - 07:42 PM]
...it's really unacceptable to even claim that US only has representatives from all nations on earth...you are not the only multicultural county you know...sorry, but that's the truth. Iraqi people are everywhere.[/quote]

Hot damn your arguments get weaker by the moment. This is getting to easy. I never said we were the only multicultural country in the world. It was you who tried to twist my words to mean that. There are other multinational/multiethnic countries. When did I say there was not. But for the most part are not the same as what you see in America. We all live together but we all bring our culture and share it with eachother. Most major cities in America have sections with distinctly ethnic flavors. And not just one or two. On one block you might find a "china town" full of distinctly chinese shops and restraunts. On the next block there might be Irish pubs. An the next Pakistani and Iranian bestros. On the next street over there is usually a "little tokyo" With Japanese shops and cuisine. There are also Malasian, Thai, Korean, Vietnemese, German, French, Russian, Jewish, and even distinctly greek sections in almost every major city. And I am not talking about a resraunt or two or perhaps a shop. I am talking an area of no less than one city block or more for each culture. All nestled together in very close proximity. I am not saying that these things can not be found in other countries. But I think the sheer number of them in such a small area and in pretty much every major city is something slightly unique. In those areas the people eat sleep and breathe those different cultures at all times. It's not just a false front. It is a way of life.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 22 2003 - 07:42 PM]
But even if that was the case, how exactly does the plan go...one day a bunch of people meet the president and politely ask him to invade their country in order to turn it into a "heaven"? (I'm being sarcastic of course). Who gives US (or anybody in general) the right to invade any country because they just don't like how things are there for some of the relatives of their citizen?[/quote]

That happened yes. There are many Iraqi immigrants and reffuges that expressed that. Remember America is formed largely of people that were not good enough for your government or your people. You know the people countries in europe possibly even yours kicked out for no good reason. No wonder you are so biggoted. Er I mean tollerant. Not! Again bluewer than blue in with a red hering to dance arround the issues. Fact: The UN set sanctions and resolutions against Saddam. Fact: Saddam broke each and every one of them in turn with no hesitation. Fact: Saddam kicked your UN inspectors out prematurely. Is that the action of someone who has nothing to hide? Were the Greeks or anyone else screaming bloody murder at this? Nope. The UN and all it's participants sat idly impotent for 12 whole years. Nothing has changed. The UN prommised consequences. Where are the consequences we have been waiting 12+ years for? The UN failed face it. This should have been the UN leading the charge and not the US. But the UN showed themselves to be incompetent full of petty bickering members who would not; could not make a decision for fear of not being in some majority or getting blacklisted by another country. Words are fine when they suffice but you must have something to back up words when they fail. You did not. The UN did not.


[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 22 2003 - 07:42 PM]
[quote]There! A post that completely dances around the crux of the argument just like most of the foriegn posters. Yet perhaps I have made you feal in some way inadequate and given you pause to think about your inadeqacies as a nation and people. Not fun when the tables are turned is it? I would ask that everyone focus on the core topic. But that is just not in the best interests for many of you. I know America is neither holy nor above reproach. But the real important thing to remeber is that neither are YOU. [/quote]

I'll disappoint you...you never made me feel in any way inadequate, so sorry but if that alone was your mission you failed.[/quote]

Actually by your admission of it and all your weak biggotous arguments you have shown that I have gotten deeper under your skin than I ever could have hoped. I never expected you to admit to being imperfect, human or no better than us. That is to much to expect from alot of you. People do something you don't like and you automatically go into the "either your with us or against us mode". Sound familliar? Yes you are just as guilty.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 22 2003 - 07:42 PM]
I really don't understand why you want to turn a simple conversation into a game of hatred.[/quote]

I did not start this game. I am not participating in it. I don't hate you. I hate the hateful inconsidderate ignorant things you say. It was you IIRC who is at the root of your so called game. Since when did I ever say I hated an ethnicity, nationality or person. Never. I directed remarks at you trying to spark meaningful conversation and get you thinking. You have never really responded to any of the key arguments. Instead you post hateful nationalist slander, red herrings, and snippits of other peoples oppinions you liked even if they were not really rellivent.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 22 2003 - 07:42 PM]
At the moment US is the one who leads the race of the global dominion.[/quote]

That is flat out nationalist proppaganda and slander. Just because people adopt culture seen as the culture of the west does not mean America is there behind it. I realise that many countries feel threttened with loosing their national identity and herritage. But that was is and never will be Americas goal. In Japan we did not set up American leaders to dictate to the Japanese how they could live. They as they always have formed their own unique culture incorporating what they see as the best of surrounding cultures. Germany was a similar story. If America's goal was occupation and dommination of other countries and destructuion of their national identity then you would have to say we are pretty inept on that front. All that time we spent in Germany and look. They don't want in on this. That is their right. So be it. We were in Afganistan. Americans do not rule there. It is governed by the people. They still have their national identity and the right not to side with us. America does not say who they can elect. It is their choice and in the end things could get out of hand again. But it is their mistakes and they are free to make them or not if they wish. America wants no part of colonies, extensive occupation, or apartheid type situations. But I suppose you know us better than we know ourselves? Then does it follow that we know you better than you know yourself.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 22 2003 - 07:42 PM]
After the "dissolution" of U.S.S.R., US is the only power left...that makes it more dangerous than other nations out there since its decisions affect the global balance much more.[/quote]

Yes fear those rabbid humanitarian Americans. Even as the army marches in, the citizens gather supplies and aid of their own volition to help the Iraqi people with no thought of gain.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 22 2003 - 07:42 PM]
Personally I don't agree with the way its government decides to deal with some issues, especially if I feel that it could cause havoc to the entire planet.[/quote]

I don't agree with the apathetic impotent way the UN decides to deal with pretty much every issue. I have been trying to discuss it with you. But you have not bitten.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 22 2003 - 07:42 PM]
The regime has become arrogant and greedy and by their political movements you understand that they don't think that they need anybody except themselves...[/quote]

Then why did we waste the time to ask anyone. If we did not care what anyone thought we would have never listened to you at all. So I ask you to explain why we did? Why did we let the UN fumble with it for 12 years when we could have run with it free and clear.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 22 2003 - 07:42 PM]
they are in absolute power (or they think they are)...nobody can touch them...[/quote]

Not so there is a reason everyone does not go marching into N. Korea. Including the UN. It is a highly different situation.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 22 2003 - 07:42 PM]
they don't need to follow the procedures that other countries follow through UN (even of it's a weak organization)...[/quote]

The US was one of the key players in setting up the UN. But there is a very deliberate reson the US never joined. It is the exact behavior that the UN showed that dettered the US. If we did not feel a need to follow the procedures of the UN why have we untill now been a staunch ally of the UN. If we did not feel a need to follow the procedures of the UN why did we let them futz with it for 12 years straight with no discernable outcome?

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 22 2003 - 07:42 PM]
This kind of tactic is suicidal as the past has proved through countless examples (think of Athens for instance). Learning from the past is a virtue...a virtue that the US government seems to lack.[/quote]

You are so off base there it is not even funny. There is very little comparrison if any. Speaking of learning from the past look who's talking?

You were better off posting other peoples words because your own don't stand up.

If you want to discuss this seriously I am all for it. I would like to get to the bottom of why the UN dropped the ball and failed to uphold their responsibility. The US is not doing anything the UN did not say they were going to accept for doing it without the UN. Because the UN could make resolution after resolution, but they could never resolve to a course of action. A course they said they would take. If we went back to the UN status quo how much longer would Saddam have been left in power? Now that he is being deposed the people will finally be able have drinkable water and rebuild their lives. Instead of rebuilding Saddams monuments to himself or his palaces.

Saddam is guilty. He violated everything the UN set out for him. It is a fact. The UN knows this. And it was not the fault of the US. Why are you not involved? If you are so concerned about what America "might" do you should be out there making sure it is not done. Or is it that you know your fears are unfounded and you are just here for dischord. If what we are doing is so fundamentaly wrong why are the Iraqi people so darned happy to see us? Shouldn't they fear us and be trying to kill us? Why was it not your country or the UN that is freeing them? They were waiting for you. The UN let them down.

With great power comes great responsibility. A very true statement. The UN had great responsibility but no power. The Equation did not balance. You are right America does have great power. You question their responsibility fine. Do something about it. If all you are gonna do is sit home and complain we have a name for that. Nothing offensive. Armchair Quarterbacking. Sitting comfy at home you always think you know the answer. But had you been in their position chances are good that you would be doing well to do just as good.

We are not so different from you. In fact there are people and settings so much like yours here at times you might question if you ever left home. I envite you to drop the hate and mistrust and actually talk with us. You might be surprised. No matter where you go all over the world people are people. If a United Nations of our leaders failed maybe a United Nations of real people could succede. America has no imperialistic aspirations. Our latest endeavors should show that.

Take it easy. Haven't you learned from SK1's conduct in this thread that a disrespectful attitude makes you loose credibility?


I posted the article so that forum members would make up their minds on it. I wanted to point out that some people DO believe its imperialism. And I'm hardly liable for what others express in news articles.

FYI: I did not express a position on the article. I clearly stated that in my original message. But if I did, I wouldn't apologize for it. I expected you to respond with a civil argument. I guess that's asking for too much.

EDIT: This will be my last post in this thread. Guess why...

Quite a discussion going on here.

I have 6 members of my extended family on active duty in the U.S. military, one for certain at the front in the Iraq war. The outcome here is deeply personal for my family. My wife and I were very happy to get a brief e-mail today from her brother at the front saying he is ok.

I'm far from an expert, but a few thoughts:

- No nation will ever have a truly consistent and long-ranging foreign policy.
the world is too complicated, domestic and international needs and problems change constantly.

- I believe U.S. foreign policy has been more good than bad since WW2. There have been plenty of mistakes, but the cold war strategy was sound and in the end it worked.

- The Middle East policy has largely been a failure. But I don't know if there is any policy that would be a success without a dangerous shift in the balance of power. The one nation that can change the situation is Israel. A deal can be made that will be a struggle for many years, but can be livable in the end. Only Israel can make that decision.

- All wars are tragic. No war is good. Human beings are broken people overwhelmed in sin, although many modern people can't accept that. But some wars are necessary. Korea was in the 50's. Tragically, Viet Nam was not. In years to come, most people will likely look back at this one and feel that it was needed.

- The Middle East will be a violent and dangerous place for many many years to come.

- The M.E. and North Korea are bad problems. The HIV catastrophe sweeping sub-Saharan Africa could in less than 10 years destabilize half the countries on that continent.

Friends, freedom is not and never will be free. Don't just hope for peace, talk about it, pray for it. Act to change someone's life for the better.

In the words of the great German Christian martyr Diettrich Bonhoeffer, martyred by the Nazis less than a month before the end of the war for opposing their regime: "I believe that God is no timeless fate...He answers sincere prayers and responsible actions".

S.

I agree whole heartedly. The UN's purpose as I understand it was to help normalise international and foriegn policy. But things got so normalised that the UN's policy was no policy. Or rather a perpetual wait and see policy. That policy did no one justice.



Again I agree. Though a cold war stance here was not appropriate IMO. It would have and the UN did leave people sick, destetute, and dying. When people are dying for no reason I think that is a problem. In the cold war Russia had clean water food and shelter. Their living conditions were different from ours. But they were not dying or suffering genocide. In Iraq they were. Saddam held his monuments with more reverence than he did his people.



Yes I sincerely hope that at some point both sides can get together. It is upsetting the way their leaders use their citizens against eachother. And even the way some of those in our administration give blind support to those leaders. When in reality the majority of the citizens would on their own rather co-exist. Resolving their past to continue to the future seems like "gordian's Knot" IIRC.



I to share those views. It is sad that it had to come to this. But Saddam was not going to walk away. I would like to hear the oppinions of all those who hate Americans as to what should have been done. Sit and wait was not the answer. People were dying. I do pray for the day they can get over their frustration and come to realise that.







true true



Hear hear!

What can I say?
At long last...I agree

We should be very watchful, mind you, of the real outcome of this war. The way it ultimately changes Iraq and the Middle East.
It has, sadly, began one of the "negative effects" of not having Saddam (one the anti-war movement warned about): instability with the separatist groups like the Kurds.
Let's just hope this fire is put out also, before it becomes a bigger issue.

Just not to be misunderstood, I am not saying that Saddam's presence was any good, but he, hmm, "controlled" (I know, I know) in some way this issue.
Now that he is doomed, somebody must figure out a way to fix this issue, for real. Before it becomes another Gaza-like place.

my god! some of these replies are longer than my readings for finals!

A couple nitpicking things:

1. I read an argument somewhere in this thread that Iraq's use of missiles against U.S. forces proves that he violated U.N. sanctions that prohibited Iraq's possession of such weapons. We bombed Iraq before any of these missiles were shown to exist, and just because we provoked Iraq into retaliating and revealing its stash of weapons, does not mean we used proper judgement when starting the attack, nor does it justify our initial provocation. This reminds me of the witch trials that went on a few centuries back. Throw the woman in the river, and if she floats, she is a witch and we must drown her! And here I'm not even taking into account NumLOCK's suggestion that the missiles weren't even SCUD's.

2. Here's another article suggesting an imperialist U.S. attitude. It's apparently the same topic posted by VLSI, although I don't think all of it can be passed off as lies and speculation. If you do read the article, skip over all of the editorial speculation and comments, and just read the quotes. It seems that's the only way to get real information about the current situation: read the facts, skip past the speculation and questionable conclusions. A quick quote:
I think I have a right to be skeptical of the Bush Administration's motives for the attacks.

Filibuster, anyone?

USA produce so much oil in fact that it is almost finished... The oil wells are already drying up while the demand for oil is constantly rising. This means you will have to buy more and more of the expencive OPEC oil. It means gas prices will at least double in a couple of years, unless more oil reserves are found in alaska or the price of the arabic oil goes down.

Here is a chart of how long the (known) oil reserves of various countries will last with the current speed of production/extraction:
http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw125.shtml

In this light one has to consider other motives to the war than just the welfare of the iraqi people or the threat to USA from their (still not proven) possession of bio/chemical weapons.

NeoNeko...I'm amazed by your rhetorical skills and perfect arguments. You are the clear winner and you can be sure that at least I have been persuaded that US is justifiable in every way. Thank you for showing me the truth that I've been missing all this time...hope you'll continue to participate in a thread that you had left long time ago with your well intended and unprejudiced way.

God bless America!

Regards,

Not another hater of an entire nation

Running out of cheap oil is one of the few things that scares the US shitless and much of it's foreign policy is driven by this fact alone. The last thing the US wanted to see was Iraq given a clean bill of health by the UN weapons inspectors, sanctions lifted and full production back in the hands of a non US controlled government. You might like to read up on the current oil situation in Venezuala to see a similar scenario unfolding. The point is not who supplies who with oil, but who controls who supplies who with oil.

It is quite clear that once the current regime is overthrown it will be replaced with a US controlled one, to the point that the US government is already selling off oil production concessions (to US companies only) before the war is even over. Kind of makes a mockery of all the talk about being for the benefit of the Iraqi people and democracy in general. To the conquerer goes the spoils and always will. I have yet to find an example of US altruism that didn't benefit the US more than the poor buggers who were on the receiving end of it.

But what the hell, I've been watching politics unfold since the end of WWII with the result that I am hopelessly cynical about the whole business.

UJ

Persons here believe that the war is about terrorism and democracy.

Others think that it is not so simplistic.

When a government is deciding for a war it can have different reasons: some official (democracy, freedom, god, …) and some unofficial (money, power). When it wants to start a war, a government talks about official’s reasons and denies unofficial reasons. (“Truth needs lies to be hidden”).

So, answer honestly and simply to the following question:
Do you believe that the US army would be in Iraq if there weren’t oil?

Well, such 'elephant moves in porcelain store' won't turn it to less complicated.

Yep, now ex-socialist countries live in sin of fast-food and toxic barbies (jus' kiddin').

Besides, don't you think it was done from inside (if you meant 'falling of evil empire' by 'worked')?
If you 'catalyse' process, you get semi-solution, which won't be 'livable in the end'.
I see the major difference between 'we gained our freedom by ourselves' and 'our freedom was enforced by kind people'.

Down to bomb for it. You gotta ruin the country first, so they will be busy recovering it before they'll question price and value of brought changes.

Really, marionette (does 'biased' or 'dependent' sound better?) government would hardly represent freedom.
More likely it will turn to 'betrayer of national interests', or even worse 'betrayer of our faith'.
So, really, I wouldn't involve religious motifs here, neither turn it to crusade.

Besides you need to act if you were asked for it, IMHO. In lack of these requests I would be busy changing your own life instead.

Finally, I'm sure you know that dictum about road paved with good intentions?

Funny. No one took action after the U.N. put out a resolution decreeing that Israel should give up the territorial gains it made in the 6-day war. And they still haven't; it's been 35 years. Gaza Strip, West Bank; those two areas should ring a bell. The Palestinians have been reduced to terrorist attacks, since they obviously can't fight back with conventional warfare. They obviously aren't as well-supplied as the U.S.-backed Israeli's are, and were when the 6-day-war happened. Why hasn't anything been done, despite the resolution? Israel flatly refused, and America backed Israel.

Why is something happening with Iraq when the security council was clearly not willing to back a war? Because Iraq flatly refused, and America doesn't back Iraq.

Why the double-standard? Both countries are taking an extremely hard line against non-supporters of the government in the interests of a stable society. This is especially necessary in a fanatically-religious region; more so when two differing fanatically-religious peoples are sharing a region. People of extreme religious beliefs have a tendency to value life and living at a much lower level than us in the west.

Are you trying to tell us that U.S. actions don't directly, or indirectly, impact the amount of terrorism both around the world and on American/Western soil? The problem with sticking your head out for what you believe in, is that you alienate the others on the opposite end of the spectrum. This is most dire when you have the military capacity to back up your beliefs, and the resolve to use it; in this situation you have a tendency to not only alienate people, but to also push them to the point of despair. Terrorism is born and bred of despair. The stronger you push your point, the stronger the counter-reaction will be.

The way I see it, the 1991 Gulf War never ended. What's going on right now, as much as you and I despise it, is just a continuation. How so? Saddam Hussein neither diarmed nor ceased hostilities with the US after the UN resolutions back then.

I'm personally against George Dubya Bush's global agenda, but I don't much mind the idea of Saddam Hussein being reduced to a couple of red patches on the sand.

You are getting off topic. Not an uncommon thing here because it seems people do not want to talk about it and instead clutter the field with other topics. But while we are on the topic I would have to agree that everyone and not just the UN has failed on that front. But even assuming Israiel did that the, situation would not improve. Many of the islamic fundamentalist terrorist will never stop untill they drive evey Israli man, woman, and child and child from the area. Even the area they do have some legal claim on. And if they can not drive them away they will find a way to slaughter them all. And make no mistake. Once they have accomplished that goal all non-muslims everywhere will be targets. And once that is out of the way they will wipe out all of those who do not conform to their ideals of what it is to be musim.

I do honestly think that in a context outside the existing power structures on "both" sides the Israli and palestinians would much preffer to co-exist.

And while we are on the subject I am not real keen on how quickly our administration tends to side with the Israli. Granted the US has more political intrests that lay with the Israli seeing as they have a more defined and in our eyes rational government structure. But that does not mean we have to like it.



In many ways the complete picture there is still clouded IMO. Shold Sharon or Arafat be removed? Perhaps both. Iraq is perhaps a much more "contained" situation. Many muslim countries have openly expressed a desire to not invade Iraq. But now that it is actually happening it is somewhat surprising the mute reaction they are now giving. It looks like they might not mourn the loss of Saddam after all. With Iraq it is just one "country" and one government at the crux of the matter. Can you suggest a clear solution to the conflict between Isriael and palestine? That is the problem and why IMO so little has unfortunately been done.



Yes. But in the vien of "doing something" the Canadians and everyone else are no better. I think it is a problem. But not a reason to ignore Saddam. They both need attention.



Double standard or not. No one has done anything. If a clear solution to the conflict there were found tomorrow I would be all for it being our next stop. But the trick is to make the situation as mutually beneficial for Israli and palestinian alike. And it has yet to be done.



What good is having beliefs if you don't stick your neck out for them. If you sit at home all meak they "will" get trampled. No offence but Canada often falls in the latter. The same could be said for pretty much every so called "neautral" country. Not that there should be international crusades or jihads. America is not out to get Muslim nations. They do not want to wipe islam from the face of the earth. Why would they when so many Americans are muslim and or follow islam.

Other countries should realy show some backbone and throw themselves into really solving the situation. Not just sit at home and criticise the way others are doing things and "how much better" things would be if it were them out there. Granted America may have shown to much backbone I'll give you that. But sitting at home doing absolutely nothing does not make someone qualified to really critique. Granted I don't dislike Canada. For all the times they generally try to remain neautral the do get out there and get dirty every once in a while. Even recently in fact.



Actually that is not when it is most dire or even dire at all. Dire is when it is used to oppress others un-nescesarrily. In the case of Iraq action had been promised by the UN itself. It is not like America alone came to the decision that Saddam was not complying and had no intention of complying. That was the UN. The US in this instance is just doing something about it for them. And we were not exactly alone.



However nice it would be. "You can not be friends with everybody." It is an unfortunate fact.



Don't forget ignorance, opression, and religeous zealotry in general. Even if we had sat at home all this time they would still hate us. I mean after all many of them hate everyone who is not them simply because they are not them. Even you. Don't kidd yourself.



Yes but where is the good in having a point if you do not push it.

Nothing you presented is a real argument against war with Iraq. It at best loosely ties in. But it is not even a weak reason to pack up camp and go home. The Iraqi govenrment is the only government I know of who is professing Iraq's innocence. It seems as if it were any country but America or so long as America was not involved most everyone would back the same action all the way. This is a general observation and has no root from you mpcfiend or your country. But it is what I sense as the general internationa setiment.

<CAL>
Hiiiiiiiiiii guyyyyyyyyyyy.
</CAL>

The God Almighty is my eye-witness that I didn't want to join this useless debate, but I can't help myself doing it... So, my question is: Where were all the war-dissenters when Saddam Hussein killed innocent civil people in Kurdistan by thousands? Nobody was interested. The war is wrong, but Saddam (and many other dictators' regimes) is even worse. Under Iraq I understand S.H., I don't understand any innocent people. These "innocent people" gave him 100% support in the so-called votes last year. And you can look at these "innocent people" with the menacing fists, babbling their hate against U.S. in the TV. I and many others (many others don't, to be honest) support U.S.A. We do not believe the oil is the main and only reason. There was no oil in Kosovo, nor in Afganistan. When the U.N. is not able to maintain an order in the world, someone has to. Long live U.S.A.!

Is this even relevant to the discussion? I don't understand the attitude of a lot of people here, it seems that for your protests to be valid you have to have been out in the streets marching against every crime against humanity since the day you were born. How does it relate to current matters? Is your current opinion justified by your previous actions? Shouldn't it be judged according to it's relevancy and not according to the posters background?

Also, what were you doing at that time? By your own logic, if you haven't been out shouting for a US intervention every time a country has behaved badly you're not qualified to support it this time either .

Besides, saying that "nobody was interested" isn't really true. Sadly, organizations like Amnesty and the Human Rights Watch doesn't get the massive media coverage that the US government does, but rest assured that some people cared and did what they could to get others attention. Besides, how much do the US _really_ care about the Kurds?


And still you want to liberate them. How noble.


Are you positive?

From a John Rees article (note that this is a heavily biased source, but other people seem to agree. There's also a Guardian article which seems to support this).

From DAWN (Also see this BBC article):

Besides, the major reason for Afghanistan was (IMHO) more a public show of force to counter 9/11 than anything else. The US didn't exactly do much to keep the country stable before that date.


Even when this goes against the UN that made the resolutions that the US keep pointing to. I guess in the future they will take care of the entire process, the route of trying to cooperate with the rest of the world through long-respected channels having proved so inefficient.


Yes, long live the U.S.A. and their very humanitarian war on terrorism. Or is it now the "war against evil"? I'm confused.

I don't know how the war is being reported in the rest of the world, but in the UK...

For several long stretches each day, the TV schedule has been shifted to put BBC News 24 (a digital only TV channel) out on BBC1 (which every one can receive). It's already been described as a "24 hour TV war".

Despite some commentary that "it's going about as well as expected", the public perception seems to be that it isn't going very well so far. We've never been able to sit and watch a war on TV quite like this, and just seeing war "close up" is sickening. Worse, there have been more than the expected amount of "set-backs" in the first few days of war. The mood of the troops has been described as "sombre", and more Iraqi resistance has been met than was expected.


I'm half glad that we get TV pictures of what it's really like, rather that just statistics. Though I realise that what we see on TV is exactly what either Iraq or our own military want to be shown. So I guess we're still ignorant of some of the true horror, but (due to the number of on-site reports that come flooding in) we're also not seeing or grapsing the "big picture" yet.


If I understand the reports correctly, the coallition forces are moving much more slowly, and taking many more casualities than they actually "need" to, because they're trying to minimise civillian casualties. I wish there was a way of communicating this to the people of Iraq - hopefully the carefully targetted bombing of Bagdad will make it apparent, though I doubt I'd see it that way if I lived there.


It surprises me, but just being at war is making me feel quite sick and anxious. It doesn't matter if we should be at war anymore - I'm behind our troops 200%. BUT I fear I'd have a different opinion if I thought I was going to be called up to fight, which makes me question my judgement on this: I'll go along with the war, because it's the "patriotic" thing to do; but if I though it would affect me, I'd still oppose it? That's not right. I guess it's the exact position the government want us all to be in: not wanting the war, and certainly not feeling that it's worth the sacrifice; but so proud of our troops in Iraq that we won't say too much against the war, in case it sounds like we're against them, when everyone has amazing respect for them.

Most people could see this coming a mile off (troops were sent to the gulf long before parliament were allowed to vote on the war) but were powerless to stop it. I don't think it's right to be manipulated in this way in a democracy.


I hope and pray thatthe war is over soon, that we win, with as few casualties as possible, and that there's someone better than Sadam who can lead Iraq and enjoy the support of the people there. We've got to show the rest of the middle east that our aims are as honourable as we keep claiming. If they're not, and we don't, I won't be the only one ashamed to be British.


Cheers,
David.

An interesting read, thank you for your thoughts! There's certainly news coverage here, but only before normal programming starts and in regular slots (unless important news breaks), but nothing like you describe except from on the usual news channels (bbc world and euronews are the only ones I get here).

I really don't think you should be ashamed because of the fact you are British. You should be proud of it being a member of a nation who helps the good thing win. And as to troops... if I can good remember, they all (U.S. and British) are professionals; they know the risk, they know, there could happen a conflict they would be sent to resolve. In any case, what makes me really worry, are these stupid situations, where are dead just by errors or human "malfunction" (the helicopters disaster and so on).

It seems that US's international image goes down at the moment...



It never seizes to surprise me how subjective the terms good/bad are for various people. My personal view:

Saddam is bad!
Bush is bad...just in a different way (although not always)!

You may be right, but Saddam is bad by his own decision, whereas G.W.B. is with high probability "bad" under various conditions which we maybe never know about...

We have alot of UN bashing in this thread and I have to agree to alot of it. The UN is a huge slow moving beast with 13 heads all moving in different directions. On the other hand: isn't a large democratic state a slow moving creature as well? Because the government is unable to carry out needed reforms on short-term affecting the majority in a negative way (but better in the long run than the current ways of handling things) in fear of the next elections where the opposition promises short-term relief? And yet we approve of this system because it's the best compromise when living in a pluralistic state. The UN is the manifestation of a multi country democracy where the contrast of conflicting interests is higher than in a single country. In effect this means that the UN is very slow by nature. Because many "modern" countries including the USA believe in the democratic principle I think they should abide to it even if it is difficult. I know how frustrating it is to see the slowness at which democratic institutions everywhere move, but I know no better alternative. As we have learned from history, if individuals defy the rules of democracy things can get way out of hand.

Apart from being slow and stubborn, I haven't seen anybody mention any other reasons why the UN didn't want to endorse this war. In part this surely has to do with the way the USA and GB ridiculed the UN by giving false and half-true "undeniable proofs" of Iraq's danger to the world. Do you remember this: "Iraq - its infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation"? Largely copy-n-pasted from an old article written by a student some time ago. Some words were replaced with more severe buzzwords but that didn't make it a "highly up-to-date" document by the the British secret service. One of the copied articles was published a year back in a the magazine "Middle East Review of International Affairs". Being more or less publically available information used in the document also suggests that the British secret service doesn't have any own internal sources of information to back up the supposed righteousness of this war.

Other items have been declared brand-new while they were in fact years old like satellite fotos (supposedly showing that Iraq has mobile chemical labs that are just now hiding from the inspectors) and recorded telephone calls. Many of these have been defaced and the USA still owe the world proof of their claims. All the world ever gets to hear is "We have information that proves what we say", but never saw.

How do you expect an organisation like the UN to approve of this war if it is being decieved and lied to? How can you expect individuals like me to sanction this war, if the official reasons consist of lies? If there are no official reasons, that don't crumble upon closer inspection, how can I not start to think of other more egoistic hidden motives?

The hypocrisy of Ramsfield is unbelievable. It is so insolent for him to accuse Iraq for violating the Geneva convention, when those captivated in Afghanistan and are being imprisoned in Guantanamo have been exposed several times to the media in really inhuman conditions. Of course I tend to forget that those are "terrorists", meaning "non-humans" which lead us to acknowledge that they don't have human rights either.

Still, it was CNN (or was it Sky News?) that offered pictures of surrendered Iraqi citizens and soldiers holding white flags...

We have a "saying" around here that goes like this (in a rought translation): in the house of a hanged man, they shouldn't speak about rope

Democracy and decent treatment is only for those who handle in its terms and deserve it... Murderers and terrorists have no right for decent handling, because they left the decent mankind on their own accord. They could make another decision, but it was their free will to leave law and regard to the lives of other people. So stop crying because of bunch of creatures who deserve nothing better but the same fate they prepared for the others...

Interesting question: What is Russia's responsibility in Baghdad's civilian casualties, if (like it has been said today) it will be proven that Russian companies have been selling GPS jammers (and weapons) to Iraqis which use those in Baghdad. Needless to say, Tomahawks and other satellite guided weapons may considerably miss their military targets in Baghdad and hit civilian homes.

I don't doubt that USA wouldn't try to hit as precicely to military targets as possible, because hitting civilian targets will only give them lots of negative publicity. Of course Iraq and even indirectly Russia (which desperately is trying to gain some authority back) benefit from the Iraqi civilian casualties caused by USA led coalition.

I believe Iraq could say the same thing about U.S. soldiers.

Widespread civilian attacks did not begin in earnest until the odds were insurmountably stacked in favour of Isreal.



It seems to me that the only countries getting attacked, both internally and from external terrorist threats are countries that are NOT meek. The U.S. is a prime example. Canada has not been attacked. Isreal has.



The escalation of violence only harms both sides much more than doing nothing. Why must the U.S. stick it's neck out for what it believes is right? Does it have a God-given right to 'adjust' the world's countries to its own set of morals? Is 'getting dirty' being undertaken for the sake of 'getting dirty' itself? Is it a way to feel good about setting right the wrongs of the world?



Dire is also when the appearance of oppression causes feelings of despair. Despite whether there is actually a threat or not.



The jury is still out on that one. I'd recommend that you dig a little deeper into the preceedings at the U.N. that led up to this conflict. Perhaps from an unbiased news source.



At least more of the common folk wouldn't be more driven to the extreme views of anti-American zealots. Hating America and actually going out of your way to hurt Americans are two different cans of worms.



So the main incentive to having a point is so you can push it?

Nothing you presented is a real argument for war with Iraq. It at best loosely ties in. Why would the Iraqi government profess it's innocence? As far as I've seen, it has not professed to be innocent whatsoever. The whole point that Saddam Hussein is trying to build on is to 'repel the Satanist and Zionist invaders.' I would be all for this war if it wasn't Bush who pushed us into it. There's just something about Bush that really really sets off alarm bells. America has a history of sticking its neck out, often on non-constructive, self-serving sides of a conflict; but with Bush, it seems a lot easier to criticize the administration's actions. I mean face it, the guy seems like such a moron. No wonder there's more of a distrust of American positioning than there is of more moderate countries.

I can see there will be no middle ground reached on this topic, so I'll refrain from continuing the argument. I won't reply to your response, but I'll definitely read it.

<ROCKO>
Shut up Cal's voice in my head!!
</ROCKO>

We have CNBC, MSNBC, CNN, FOX NEWS, and more all covering it and nothing else ATM 24 hours a day. It's not exactly what is being covered that is irksom. But how much and how many times it is being covered.



Well I suppose you could go to the man on the street and ask them "what was to be expected?" and each one would give a slightly different account. Have the civilian population been told exactly what to expect? I don't think that is the case. And as such all their comments on what is "expected" are mute. The failure of the hellicopters was unexpected. Some how I don't think the progress of the war falls under that category.



Again who said what we should expect. And as civilians often not aquanited intimate with war are our expectations even valid?



Yes the Iraqi national media reports whosale slaughter of Iraqi citizens and mass graves. Granted they can't take us to any. Of a contrasting nature th US and British national media have yet to really confirm any major civilian casualties. There have been civillian casualties to be sure. But how many is the question. And what caused them? I am not saying a smart bomb or GPS guided missle could not go astray in it's own. But as stated in another post Iraq has GPS scramblers. They could effectively reduce the accuracy of the misiles so that they do not hit their intended military or government targets. But instead hit civillian. Not that the safety of the Iraqi people concerns their government or military. Those two reported missile impacts in Iran.....could it have not been something like that? Were the missiles actually from the US or were they possibly Iraqi? If the missles were from US troops what caused the malfunction? Bad munitions? Or Iraqi GPS jamming? That would be interesting to know.




Well if many of the independant reports are to be believed life for the civilians in Bagdad goes on much as it always has. Even though Bagdad is a major destination and location of targets for the war. The people have not fled. They could have. But many of them still drive to work each day and go to the market. When the air raid sirens soud they have even been said not to scramble for cover. But instead go to their windows and look up to the sky or at government buildings waiting for them to be hit. That may be quite optimistic. But it does sound like they have quite alot of confidence in Americas ability and our intentions that civilians are not targets.




As a civillian we are generraly not acustomed to war. And that IMO is a good thing. I to would question my fortitude and resolve if I were called to fight and serve. There are some people who make a life and career out of military service. But they are not us.

So...

The fact that they have not got a hearing from any lawyer, or trial yet is something that according to your opinion does not violate the human rights and the conventions these rights are based on...

The fact that the American government considers that these people are not war prisoners does not violate any human right law...

As far as I remember all the mass murderers and serial killers of your country got a fair trial, didn't they?
Even the Nazis got a fair trial, didn't they? If you don't know I should recommend you read the Nyremberg trial. Why these people do not deserve a trial? Let's suppose that even one person among them is innocent, how the hell this will be proved since they don't have a chance to go to the court?

Do you know that even the term "war against terror" does not hold? There is no such thing. War exists only between nations or ethnic groups. But this is not the point. Someone should see behind these marketing tricks governments use to manipulate the masses. What is important is to maintain all the institutions and laws our society was built on. If we begin to terminate one law every day just in order to justify our actions this will lead to anarchy. The means do not justify the cause!

Have you seen these U.S. soldiers that were caught by the Iraqis? According to the Iraqis (and not only them)these people are war criminals since they have invaded their country without having got legitimate approval from U.N. first. What if they put them somewhere where noone will ever find them, without prosecution and without trial? Would that be OK to you? Or the human rights hold only for the nation you believe has the right on its side?

HUMAN RIGHTS HOLD FOR ANYONE MY FRIEND!!

A russian scientist, Valentin Kashinov, did provide them with details for GPS jamming, but I doubt this was "official russian policy" at the time. It's also more or less publicly available information by now AFAIK. The US might be trying to pin this on the Russians because they don't want the world to know how easily their X billion dollars of weapons research can be foiled

As proven in the Kosovo conflict, you don't necessarily need that sophisticated equipment to distract US weapons. A couple of microwave ovens can be enough, especially if your radars are old enough and work on longer wavelengths than what's currently the standard.

Quote from this article:

The weapons are a different story. Seems unlikely to me though, but you never know - more likely would be that it's Russian black market issue.

@ Neo Neko and others who want the war


Damn, I have to quote myself...

So, answer honestly and