Lemme quote your words:

First lets wait for prooves it's not FUD. It's not the first attempt. BTW, if anyone cares, views from opposite camp:
http://www.gazeta.ru/print/2003/03/24/USbl...lamescomb.shtml
http://www.translate.ru/url/tran_url.asp?l...1&psubmit2.y=11
http://www.translate.ru/url/tran_url.asp?l...0&psubmit2.y=10

Secondly are defencive means causing civilian casualties or missiles they are used against?
It would be naive to think they won't defend themselves by all the means they can use.


Anyway, I meant not accidental but intentional moves and not civilian casualties but ruining infrastructure, industry and so on.

Besides, as for now coallition seems to be concentrated on advancing into Iraq territory, leaving large cities rear. To avoid street battles afterwards they will need ehhm... siege them.

It may become guerilla war (according to some tv reports I saw), rather than Saddam removement operation. So they'll have some difficulties in making it as clean as possible in this case.


Agree. I doubt only that CNN will concentrate its audience' attention on such issues, which will dramatically reduce amount of such publicity, IMO. At least for electorate.

Thank you for taking the trouble to correct my vocabulary problem. I confess that my english aren't that great, contrary to my greek. We can speak the latter any time you wish.



We've heard that before countless times. U.N. was doing something actually...he sent there inspectors in order to check the armory of Saddam, find any weapons of mass destruction (if there were any), destroy it and disarm him...plain and simple. The inspectors were very optimistic that the procedure was going well and that they just needed more time (oh yeah!...they had 12 years...I know the answer)...till that time no evidence at all that Saddam was capable of causing global havoc as Bush and Blair (among a few others) were trying to prove.

Even if Saddam violated those resolutions as you say, nobody "elected" US (or any other) as the police force of this planet, ordered to exterminate the malicious dictators everywhere. (after all it has been proven that US is also responsible for the dominion of some of them). In case you don't know, there was dictatorship between 1967-1973 in Greece, supported by the US government. And no...none american president tried to "free" us from the regime.



I know that already...but it just never seem enough, does it?



Next thing you'll say is that those prisoners had the luxury of a pool for their spare time and a discoteque filled with babes in bikini. But even if they lacked those, at least they had some showers with (guess what) running water, in order to do something when they hadn't "their eyes blacked out behind no-see goggles and their ears and noses tightly muffled". That "sense deprivation" is a totally necessary procedure in their attempt to "re-humanize" them again



I think the photographs have been given away from US authorities, if I know well...how would you explain them? Isn't the photographed material enough for you? But let's say that it's not...let's say that since those publications weren't able to prove it, that there haven't been any torturing at all. According to this logic, since UN inspectors didn't find anything to prove the existence of weapons of mass destruction, there just aren't any...you said so



I'm sure it does...probably those guards tried to show them what would have happened if Saddam had caught them instead...or how things would be if they were borned "senseless"



If you say so...who am I to question your judgement?!



I think it does have something to do with it. Firstly it shows that some (if not all) people behind this war are hypocrites as well. Those that try to protect a captive's rights, haven't protected them themselves in a similar situation.

And since I have stopped posting entire articles, try reading this and especially this quote:



"POWs have to be protected against insult and public curiosity" <-- Yeah Right!!!

PS Still around NeoNeko? You do are fond of this thread even if you have left, or haven't you?

Could you please back this up somehow, as I can't find a single news article suggesting this in any reputable news source. And this would seem to be a huge scoop, so I would be surprised if all major news channels failed to report on it. I might have missed it somehow, so please provide a link or two. Perhaps my Google just broke.


Is there a part of your post that you're not picking out of thin air? Again, give me some documentation. The only "consequence the UN gave Iraq" I can find in resolution #1441 is this:
"Serious consequences" may or may not mean US carpet bombing or the end of Saddam's rule in Iraq, but that is certainly not the US's decision to make.


They didn't go back on it. The US just decided their support in this matter was unimportant. Maybe if the US had handled things properly with some respect for the channels of international communication they would have gotten their support the first time around.


And it doesn't bother you one iota that large parts of it are stolen from an old acamedic article, mistakes and all included? Maybe you don't question its relevance, but others do:



If it was actually _proof_, this would indeed be true. But is it? Opinions differ. And you have articles like this one which also put it in a bit of a strange light.


No matter how sensitive it is, if the US government says "we have proof, but we're not going to show it to you" I remain sceptical.


Could you elaborate a bit on this? Which lies do the UN believe on a daily basis? Which lies do they not question? And to say that the UN has never changed anything before is completely asinine, and I believe it shows your lack of perspective.


Umm, no. Living in a member state of the UN does not equate to "giving your official word" (as opposed to what? Your inofficial word?) to all treaties the UN might sign. As a human being living in a democracy you are actually free to decide for yourself what you agree or disagree with regarding the actions of your leaders. It is even considered a good thing to voice your opinion if you disagree. And why you're calling on random individuals to "get over there" and oversee a war they do not agree with is beyond me. Also see my paragraph about #1441 on the nature of what was or was not promised by the UN.

I don't know what that quote by me had to do with this. I clearly said that "if proven" and asked "what is Russia's responsibility if proven". I didn't say that Russia has direct responsibility about the civilian casualties, but if it has allowed export, or not controlled Aviakonversia (USA has definitely let Russia know that it must be controlled, because they tested Aviakonversia's devices), imo it has some indirect responsibility. But as I said already earlier, "if proven".
Washington Post's anonymous source said that CIA has verified that signal from Aviakonversia's device was used. Maybe it's FUD, but it's definitely not impossible. Could be that we will never find out. It's very hard to prove, and could be that USA doesn't want to risk their relations with Russia because of this and possible illegal weapon trades.
Ok, this all is so speculative that maybe this whole issue is not worth discussing unless we get more proofs.

Of course Iraqis will use all the means they have. I hope Russian companies haven't provided them these means recently.

Thank you for your reply JohnV

Neo Neko can't answer. In the other hand he have a lot of work, his case is hard to defend.

Let me ask the question differently, do you think that the US army would be in Iraq if there was no more oil ?

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 24 2003 - 06:16 PM]
Thank you for taking the trouble to correct my vocabulary problem. I confess that my english aren't that great, contrary to my greek. We can speak the latter any time you wish.[/quote]

Trust me it's no big deal. Don't read more into it than was intended. On the whole you do quite well. Quite a bit better than I would do handling greek.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 24 2003 - 06:16 PM]
We've heard that before countless times. U.N. was doing something actually...he sent there inspectors in order to check the armory of Saddam, find any weapons of mass destruction (if there were any), destroy it and disarm him...plain and simple. The inspectors were very optimistic that the procedure was going well and that they just needed more time (oh yeah!...they had 12 years...I know the answer)...till that time no evidence at all that Saddam was capable of causing global havoc as Bush and Blair (among a few others) were trying to prove.[/quote]

He kicked the UN inspectors out. Is that the action of someone who has nothing to hide? Then he had 12 years to hide whatever it is he may of had to hide. Then you have to ask what it is he has to hide. Apparently it is something he is not supposed to have. Now 12 years later you expect inspectors to go back in and be effective? They know what they are looking for. But they have no idea where to start looking. And even if they did things like mobile stations are not just gonna sit around waiting to be found. Then there are possible sites burried in the desert. "Hello Mr. leader man. Take us to your hidden underground base. We would like to poke around." And then there are sites like the one just uncoverd that were camoflaged to appear as something else. I doubt you could get someone to give you odds of the success of UN inspections after 12 years. The fact that they found those Al sommud missiles was against all odds. A feat I think it would be well neigh impossible to reproduce or better statisticly. I am sure the person responsible for not moving those weapons no longer has any earthly worries.

12 years ago we had a chance. We caught Saddam with his pants down and no chance to hide anything. The UN managed to majorly screw things up though. It was not the UN alone. We should not have waited 12 years. We should have gone back then and there.

In short inspections at this point are "pointless". And are not an option. Even if you delude yourself into thinking that they are working. It is at best a false security.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 24 2003 - 06:16 PM]
Even if Saddam violated those resolutions as you say, nobody "elected" US (or any other) as the police force of this planet, ordered to exterminate the malicious dictators everywhere.[/quote]

We did not wan't to go it alone. But it was clear that the inspections were pointless. Something had to be done. You can only invite the world to contribute to a solution for so long before the braindead yammering that "the inspections will work" prove the futility of the situation. Tell ya what. You count to 12 years and we will run and play go hide the thermo-nucler(not nucular dubbya) warehead. Then you come over and try to find them. Best of luck.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 24 2003 - 06:16 PM]
(after all it has been proven that US is also responsible for the dominion of some of them). In case you don't know, there was dictatorship between 1967-1973 in Greece, supported by the US government. And no...none american president tried to "free" us from the regime.[/quote]

As a grecian especially if you are old enough to remember that then you are well positioned to speak on the subject. So was this dictator into genocide? Did he forcibly go out and conquer neighbors? Was he ammasing weapons from numerous countries internationally and researching to develop weapons of mass destruction. Did he neglect public welfare and instead have the public build monuments and pallaces to and for him? No really I am not being fecetious. I am keenly interested. I am not saying the guy was a saint whoever he was. But would you put him on par with Saddam? We like democracy sure. But there is no reason to topple a government just because it is a dictatorship. There can be such things as benevolent dictatorship. And even dictatorships that are not self destructive can be tollerated.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 24 2003 - 06:16 PM]
Next thing you'll say is that those prisoners had the luxury of a pool for their spare time and a discoteque filled with babes in bikini.[/quote]

No but neither did the Americans. Guantanimo bay is no hot spot for nightlife.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 24 2003 - 06:16 PM]
But even if they lacked those, at least they had some showers with (guess what) running water, in order to do something when they hadn't "their eyes blacked out behind no-see goggles and their ears and noses tightly muffled". That "sense deprivation" is a totally necessary procedure in their attempt to "re-humanize" them again  [/quote]

Part of the Geneva conventions IIRC is not to humiliate prisoners. Which showing their faces could do.(Like the ruckus with the Iraqi putting the American POWs on public television display) I know you have not given any sort of alternate explanations any creedence. Wouldn't it be possible that their noses and mouths were being covered to protect them from possible diseases US troops might have to which they have no immunity. The converse could also be true. The eye masks could also be explained similarly. I am not saying that they are the only explanations or even that they are the real explanations. But since they are explanations that don't fit your mould for us that they may have not been considdered.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 24 2003 - 06:16 PM]
I think the photographs have been given away from US authorities, if I know well...[/quote]

Some perhaps. But not all. I do believe that what was allowed to be shot was filtered. But if what was in those pictures was so sinister then......

1. Why did the US let them out?
2. If the US was giving them out tell me why God why would they have given those?

I thought the US was striving to be a better more evil opresser. How could we slip up and make such a bone-headed move? Not..........

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 24 2003 - 06:16 PM]
Isn't the photographed material enough for you?[/quote]

Photographs are nice and all. I have some nice doctored photographs of supposed naked celebrities perhaps I could intrest you in.

Photographic evidence? Perhaps. But of what??

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 24 2003 - 06:16 PM]
But let's say that it's not...let's say that since those publications weren't able to prove it, that there haven't been any torturing at all. According to this logic, since UN inspectors didn't find anything to prove the existence of weapons of mass destruction, there just aren't any...you said so  [/quote]

No actually I did not. But it would prove that we were equals. Nice to see you not thinking you are all superior and the like.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 24 2003 - 06:16 PM]
If you say so...who am I to question your judgement?![/quote]

I considder you an equal. Hell pretty much anyone falls under that classification for me since we are all human. So perhaps calling you an equal does not mean to much. But it does give you the right to comment. But I will call you on BS from time to time. Just as you would.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 24 2003 - 06:16 PM]
I think it does have something to do with it. Firstly it shows that some (if not all) people behind this war are hypocrites as well. [/quote]

We already covered this. Yes pretty much everyone who is behind the war suffers from hypocracy somewhere. But so do all of those against it.

[quote=bluewer than blue,Mar 24 2003 - 06:16 PM]
Those that try to protect a captive's rights, haven't protected them themselves in a similar situation.

And since I have stopped posting entire articles, try reading this and especially this quote:

[quote]Then there's America's most famous "enemy combatant" Taliban Johnny, aka John Walker Lindh. Immediately after being captured in the brutal prison rebellion at Mazar-e-Sharif, the frail American jihadist was interviewed by war zone aficionado Robert Young Pelton (who was staying at Dostum's compound at the time). According to an account in the New Yorker, after asking his Special Forces buddies to wait to "shoot him" until he was done, Pelton interrogated the wounded Lindh under the gun of U.S. military personnel. Later the military stripped him naked, taped him to a gurney and threw him in the back of a transport plane back to the U.S. Pelton's interview ran on CNN and was used to convict Lindh for conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals and to provide material support to a terrorist organization. He is currently serving a 20-year sentence.[/quote]

"POWs have to be protected against insult and public curiosity" <-- Yeah Right!!![/quote]

Dude! ROTFLMAO!!! That is kinda funny. He was an enemy combatant sure. But the thing to keep in mind was that he is also a US citizen. Now if they had done that to an Afgani taliban combattant then you would have something. What we might want to be more concerned about is why he got off so light for doing the same thing with a little treason on top.

IMHO you're definitely and completely wrong... How can you even compare this?!

Entering a country for highly questionable reasons and plunging it into a war which has taken quite a bit of civilian casualities and may take much more in the days ahead, is, at the very least, not nice.

I'm not sure if it qualifies as 'murder' or 'terrorism', but the line is not hard, and you shouldn't be surprised if someone thinks the US actions quality for the terms.

I am not... I know the U.S. and it's troops aren't very popular... I'm just disgusted, because people especially in Western Europe have very quickly forgotten all, what the U.S. did for them since the World War 2 meanwhile we in the Eastern Europe had to live in the similar regime like that, which ends up in Baghdad nowadays...

Is the entirety of Europe supposed to only cheer to the US in whatever they do for the entire rest of human civilization?

It's a rather ludicrous assumption.

Maybe some remember WWII very well, especially how it is to be at war.

Definitely not, but I personally don't believe that the U.S. would start something like this in Iraq just for fun of it... There must be serious reasons we maybe know not about today, but in the long run we would know it.

I guess you are the last person in the world who don't know yet the reason of this war...

I always admired people like you who have no problems and know everything Maybe you know your future, too...

I do have a problem, this war, and I don't know how to stop it... so you see I don't pretend that I have no problems and I know everything. But justify a war saying we will see after the reason seems to be quite naive and dangerous.

For example in 1917 after the British army invade Iraq English General Stanley Maude told to the Iraqi population “We are here for your freedom, because you have a tyranny since 26 generation and we don’t accept that”. But the only thing that was important after that was the Oil and the Iraq is still under a tyranny…

In 1991, Iraq was into a huge debt after the war against Iran. Saddam Hussein asked to the US ambassador what would be the reaction of the USA if Iraq will invade Kuwait. The ambassador answered like this: “there is no military agreement between Kuwait and USA, there will be no reaction”…
This information has been disclosed many years after the war. So you’re right, I’m sure we are going to know a lot of things after the war…

Cheers

You find it naive to think USA was in any way responsible for anything Saddam has done by supplying him with weapons/technology/consultants. Then bring up possible/indirect Russia responsibility for doing the same. I see contradiction here.
If it was irrelative, I might get it wrong.


US was justified for doing similar things to prevent their opponents of becoming too powerful.
If mentioned companies did, maybe they're worried of world becoming unipolar to put it in polite way. Or have taken 'plain business, nothing personal' too literally. Although it's too speculative indeed.
Anyway, US has tested devices, knew (?) Iraq got those and no actions taken until failures occured?


They already did. In case with Ukraine US never bothered to exonerate.

I know bluewer than blue (and others) have already answered, but the right to a fair trail is the most basic human right for EVERYONE.

If people are guilty of crimes, if they are murderers etc etc, then they should be found guilty.

More importantly, if they are not guilty, then they must be tried, and found innocent. It is ridiculous and immoral to keep someone detained without trial - all but the most barbarous and corrupt regimes in the world accept this.


The treatment of POWs by Iraq is horrific and terrible and illegal and sickening. Being shown on TV is the least of their worries. But the tone of the outcry from the USA was pathetic - "you can't show them on TV because it's against the Geneva convention" - there are different phrases for this in every nation in the world. It's the Donkey calling the Rabit "long ears".

The USA has a right to be angry about miss-treatment of POWs, and the POWs themselves are heros. But the USA must stop chastising other countries for breaking international agreements which the USA itself ignores at will. The answer, of course, is not for the USA to stop opposing what other countries are doing wrong, but to put right their own conduct immediately.


Cheers,
David.

For all the TV pictures, I've found the war correspondants diaries at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/world/...log/default.stm

to be the best reporting for communicating what's happening, and what it's like to be there.


btw, you mentioned Iraqi TV claiming "hundreds of casualties"...

I realise that UK reporters in Iraq are monitored by the Iraqi government, but I've heard one say that Iraq state television has been "surprisingly honest" about some aspects of the war, including the small number of civilian casualties in the capital, and the rapid progress of the coaliation forces through Iraq.


Cheers,
David.

For those of you who haven't seen it yet, have a look at Where is Raed?, supposedly a weblog from Baghdad. Difficult to say whether or not this is genuine, but at least some people seem to have reasons to believe it is.

garf > Entering a country for highly questionable reasons

Jesus! Have you and the other negative commentators taken the time to look at the links supporting this US move? If they seem biased (or like US propaganda) then please let me know. Why does it need to be pounded into so many heads here about the intrinsic evil of Saddam and his group, and the reasons his elimination is necessary. The US, Britain, and even Australia are doing the world a favor at great sacrifice, and all I see here is bullshit ramblings from the un-enlightened.

Here's the link to a very well written summary of Iraq/Saddam again...

http://www.mideastweb.org/iraq.htm

Please point out any inaccuracies & propaganda

xen-uno

The page looks faily accurate. It does nothing to convince me, and your message does not lead me to believe there is any sense in us discussing this.

Heh, first of all, the vast majority of weapons, military technology and consultants Iraqis have had are from Russia, this is no secret at all. Just look what kind of weapons their army is using.

Even regardless of that, it would be a bit different to provide military technology to a country which has been under UN import/export restrictions for 12 years.......

Besides, imo Russia is in no position to judge USA, considering what murdering/raping/killing of civilians have happened in Tsetsenia during many years. Russian army has "cleaned" complete villages. The civilian casualties killed in Iraq are very small compared to that.. But because USA has wanted to improve its relationship with Russia, it has not done much anything to condemn it.

I will reproduce here an opinion from Luis Fernando Verissimo (a well-known Brazilian writer), that appeared in Zero Hora (a local Brazilian newspaper) on March 2, 2003. I'm not posting the link because the archives on the web site are only a week long. The text is in Portuguese, so I will try to translate it the best I can. English is not my native language, so there will be certainly grammar and spelling errors. Feel free to point them out and I'll edit this post.

(Note: Luis Fernando Verissimo lived 2 years in New York and publicity states his love for the city. On his vacations he always returns there. He's not an U.S. hater.)



Names of respect

The 12,000 page document Iraq gave to U.N. last year about his weapons was censored before it has been widely distributed, by request of the U.S., according to the German newspaper Tageszeitung, cited by the journalist Alexander Cockburn, probably the last live stalinist but a good hypocrisy catcher. Cut from the document: the names of all enterprises -- Americans, British and German in its majority -- that sold nuclear, chemical and biological warfare technology to Iraq before 1991, encouraged by its respective governments, despite all the prohibitions from treaties of that time. Names of respect like Honeywell, Rockwell, Hewlett Packard, DuPont, Eastman Kodak, Bechtel. Saddam Hussein was supported and armed by the Americans when it was a preferred alternative to the hostile "teocracia" [Couldn't translate that, the meaning is like "fundamentalism"] of Iran and Donald Rumsfeld admired him, even if he [Saddam] was no better than he is today.

The enterprises that illegally armed Iraq had their names removed from the record. (Big enterprises usually have success in keeping its names outside reports. There is good examples here in the republic of impunity and corruption without corrupters. [Talks about big Brazilian scandals outside the scope of this discussion]) The American government is already choosing the companies that will rebuild Iraq after the long-awaited devastation in this war that begins. The majority of the favourite to win the the "invitation to bid" [I don't know if it's the right translation for "licitação": the process the government does to hire service from private companies], to a work estimated to cost US$ 20 billion a year for many years, is composed by friends of the White House, or do you expect that a French one would be chosen? An example, according a recent article at Salon: Kellog Brown & Root, that belongs to Halliburton, was once lead by vice-president Dick Cheney, and already had huge profits with the terror, by building the Guantanamo prison, among other things. And the ubiquitous Bechtel, an engineering firm from California whose influence in the American politics and history exists since a long time ago, desproportional to its carefully low profile, feeds various conspiracy theories about secret power. And waiting to catch, literally, the remains after the industrial/militar compound gets what it wants with the war is the American rebuilding/militar compound, that trusts in enough destruction to not let fall short of work and profits. But they are all names of respect.

I'd guess this is probably at least partly true, but until we have some real proofs what really was sold, how much and by who, it's just another hinting document.
And I wonder why this paper only mentions western countries...

This "War on Iraq is only because of oil and nothing else" has become such a mantra and easy answer that it needs some criticism.

BBC has various essays on the war and one of them is "the war is not about "blood for oil" " by oil expert Jerry Taylor from the right-of-centre Cato Institute in Washington.
It's located here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/midd.../transcript.stm

Here's the BBC essays page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2861721.stm


Personally i think this war is not about oil, it's about security; Saddam is not a serious threat now, but he can be (and probably will be) threat to US in the future unless stopped.

This is what Colin Powell and others were saying on World Economic Forum meeting at Davos on last january. Here's a email about davos meeting from Pulizer winner and science journalist Laurie Garrett for her friends which spilled on internet. Very, very, very interesting reading about state of the world.

The best part regarding the war on Iraq:

( This email is confirmed to be real. You can read analysis about it and the spill from here:
http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.p...article&sid=938 )

Add to that thought of possibility to start democratizing process of Middle East by starting from Iraq after Saddam and his regime is removed, then this becomes really interesting.. I recommend links posted by Secret Chief on page five (Thanks Chief! Excellent info. ), earlier posted Mideastweb.org Iraq-page and also other pages on http://www.mideastweb.org .

There are likely other reasons for this war too, but security is IMHO most important.

I do agree that this war is not about oil only. There are various reasons behind it which have been discussed thoroughly in previous pasts.

However since you bring forward again the issue of pre-emption I have to re-state this: there are tens of "dangerous" people out there who have power, dictators, madmen, nuclear & chemical weapon holders, arrogant fools who think they own the planet etc...I think most agree on that. What we probably won't agree with ever is who exactly are those, since these kind of things are quite subjective, thanks to propaganda and personal interestes as well. For instance...U.N. wasn't really convinced that Saddam was any big threat for the planet at the moment, so there was no reason to deal with him via this war. A minority of U.N. though thought differently. o what's gonna happen if another minority tommorow (or just one powerful country alone) decides to strike another country because they think its leadership is a threat to their interests or security?

Bush is "dangerous" for me at least. He is not in the same vein with Saddam, but that doesn't make him any less "dangerous" for the global peace.

And hey, even "Minority Report" managed to prove the risk behind pre-emptive wars and let's not forget that those at least had some faultless psychics...



If that's the case and I personally I think that this is exactly Bush's intentions, I'm extremely worried. I don't trust Bush...heck I don't trust one nation alone or a few either...so how am I supposed to feel that people that nobody ever chose them to play this role and only a small portion of the planet trusts them are about to "clean" the latter? And who is gonna stop them if things go beyond control (if they haven't already)? What makes their judgement more accurate than that of other nations who oppose to their actions? And who's next...not that it matters much!



It was written in another post (if I remember correctly) and I do agree as well. A democracy in Middle East will most probably end up with the same kind of islamic fundamendalists. It's inevitable. The majority are fanatics anyway. It was proven alone by the fact that the US government was not expecting such counterblast from the Iraqi people, making their plans much more difficult to achieve...instead they thought that the moment they would go in, the people would welcome them as "liberators" and helped them in their attempt...they thought that it would be a piece of cake to invade Iraq and provoke a rebellion against the regime of Saddam. Facts contradicted their expectations!

Let's not forget that there are also those who hate Saddam, but hate US as well. And they are plenty.

Some resources about what weapons Iraq has, espessialy what they got in post-soviet period? I don't find 'this is no secret at all' sufficient.

On weapon sells:
http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/feataw...ehali_194_p.htm


Quite ineffective, especially in anti-aircraft/aviation.
BTW any reccomendations on good resource on correlation of forces in this war (numbers/facts and preferably no demagogy)?


It doesn't.


It would be tricky thing to do while encouraging global war on terrorism in the same time.

On the other hand:


More sentiments on the matter:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/525075.stm
http://www.rd.dgu.ru/enews25.html

I agree with you, oil is not the only reason. There are also geo strategic, political and economic reasons.

About terrorism, why they don’t want to make war to Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Korea, Iran… you have the choice. All these countries are much more involved in terrorism or mass destruction weapon. You have to remember also that UN inspector was working (also thanks the US/UK threat) and they found nothing to threaten USA or even Israel… so why not let UN inspectors do their job?

I already heard an interview of this person. The price of the oil on the market is generally fixed by the price of the North Sea oil. So if your oil company can get a much better price for his oil, this company can make a lot of money. The production price in North Sea is about 15$/barel in Iraq it’s 2$. You can figure the difference and also understand why France, Russia and Germany really don’t want a war…

About the American oil, strategically USA prefer to keep their oil.

For the Democracy in Iraq, it’s a little bit sad but I don’t think that they really need it. All the democratic attempt in Islamic country ended by the election of Islamic party which didn’t want to keep the democracy…

Garf: Could you tell me where you got your numbers for civilian casualties? There have been casualties sure. But your numbers differ quite a bit from any reputable numbers I have seen. Ok you did not give numbers and I guess it depends on how you define "quite a bit". So what is the size relation from "quite a bit" to "surprisingly few"?

God don't be so ignorant.

I can reply all I want. And my position is as easy to defend as yours. Did you even take a look at the quote of John V. that you posted? I never said oil played no part in this. What ever gave you the impression I did? Perhaps you have not really been reading what has been posted here to arrive at an understanding of some sort. Instead you skim the arguments looking for little snippits you think you understand or can agree with. And go off half cocked thinking you have an impenetrable argument.

Oil does play a role. But I would not count it as a major factor. Did you read that quote of John's? Hmmmmm. I am sure you are one of the many who would like to blame America completely for Saddam and Iraq's rise to power. Some claimed we appointed Saddam as the leader of Iraq. That is complete and utter BS. He was born into power and was prepared throughout his youth by his own people to take this position. Some say the weapons we sold to Iraq several decades ago are the reason for their military power. That is also complete and utter BS. If that were the case then why are they fighting us with Russian made rifles and munitions and not the supposed copious ammounts of weapons we gave them? And while I will not deny America had a role in it John's post provides an interesting point that even without America Iraq still would have come into their current power. Your country is an evil user of middle east or OPEC oil. Your country is just as much to blame as we are on that. Don't give me the "we are better because we use less" rhetoric. The fact that you contribute at all and then try to criticise at all is shamefull.


This is not a new war. It is the conclusion of an old war.

I think the thing you are unfortunatly missing is that this is a percieved war. You generally do not find war criminals being tried for war crimes in the middle of the war.



In principle I agree. But I guess them holding smoking guns would still not be enough for you.



Well again you show some ignorance and lack of understanding on this issue. They are captured enemy combatants in what is being called a war. In essence POWs. I would agree that they should not be kept there indefinatly. But don't try to color us evil for doing what has been done countless times in war throughout history and even in recent history by your people and people you approve of. That is hypocritical



I dont think anyone said you can't show them on TV. What the problem with it was as I understand it was that their faces were shown and they were on public display.



Where do you get this stuff? How has america broken or ignored those international agreements in the detaining of those Afgahni "Prisoners Of War"? We do no parade them around on TV. We do not put them on public display. Those supposed inhumane conditions you cite could have been there to protect their identities from public scrutiny during the taking of those pictures. Did you ever considder that? How does that make us the hypocrits in this instance that you are? Those pictures are also over a year old. Are they still being kept in those same conditions? I know you don't know so I am gonna tell you. No. Was the term "sense depravation torture" a term used by any American interviewed or even hinted at by them. Or is it simply the author of the articles impression of what he has seen and does not fully understand or even want to ask about? I am gonna go over to Britan and take pictures out of their possible context just so I can criticise you. Not really. But do you get the point?

Well, I think Jane's would have the most accurate info available for ordinary people, but it costs money..
Here's CNN's page about the 2 military forces:
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/...iraq/index.html
Yees, seems very objective and respected source this lipmagazine.org.. Let me guess, here is your primary source for other completely objective news.
Or try this for complete lies..
As always, I think the truth is somewhere between...

Chill out man, you don't have the ability to judge me.


The subject being serious, I think it's better to don't take us to seriously.


I'm blaming all the country that helped him.


USA helped Saddam since 1958... A lot of dictators have taken advantage of the cold war...
Read also: http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/IraqLott.html


USA had mainly provided mass destruction weapon and it was this type of weapon that was targeted by the UN. Maybe it was effective?


Why not sale drug because the stuff would arrive anyway...



I agree with you, we are all responsible and that's why I really think we have to stop this madness. In order to do that, people from US should be aware of that.

Finally you don't answer clearly and simply to the question.

Do you have any impartial source for this? It's very easy to say that "CIA put Saddam in power", "CIA gave Saddam WMDs". It's just too simple, not very believable. Usually this kind of "information" is greatly exaggerated and simplified, simply put, propaganda. The impartial sources I have read imply that Saddam put himself into power, not any CIA... although it's likely that CIA has supported him. But there are many levels of support...

And because Saddam is the Iraqi dictator, you could say the same "country X supported Saddam", about any country who dealed with him.. in that case it would be probably easier to count who hasn't supported Saddam..

Argh!...there are a few opinions that simply leave you speechless. I was ready to "listen" to many different explanations, but that "their noses and mouths were being covered to protect them from possible diseases US troops might have to which they have no immunity" was way beyond my wildest imagination.

Next time, when I see someone in the street hitting out another man with a stick, I might interprete it as his attempt to make the body of the latter more "resistant" to beating. It's possible after all...it's just that the possibility is estimated at around 0,000002%.



The answer is very simple actually. They showed those pictures (and yes...US Defense Department gave them away) in order for the "terrorists" to know what they are gonna deal with if they mess with them. This way they can subdue the willingness of the "terrorists" and stop any future strike. At least that's what they believe.



Of people that are being treated like non-human beings. But at least they got shower and running water.

If those photographs were fake I'm sure that the US authorities would have claimed that. But that wouldn't be possible, since they provided them to the public.

Amnesty International doesn't really believe your alternative explanations though either. Hope you don't think that they just hate US as the rest of us and loves bashing it.



So the problem is that officialy he wasn't an Afghani taliban combattant, but a US citizen, meaning that you never humilated or exposed the face of a POW. Convenient! Btw great photo.

Also...here's a good article about the Geneva Convention. It shows how US violates also the convention. Sounds weird I know, but when Al-Jazeera showed the faces of those soldiers, I thought that this might save their life after all.



According to Amnesty International (visit the link I included above) the problem is that those "enemy combatants" are NOT considered POWs (as you claim), but "unlawful combatants", which means that are being denied specific rights under Geneva Convention. So who shows ignorance and lack of understanding exactly?



And you are probably missing what budgie had said in the first place about those Afghani prisoners, which led me and 2bdecided among others to react:



If you agree with that, I really don't know what to say...

I have to admit it, this is not really a neutral source. Anyway, I v read and hear this information several times, so I'm quite sure about it.

Propaganda is everywhere but generally more in the involved countries.

Well, obviously if they were considered POWs, USA would have to release them, because this "war against terrorism" is not that kind of war which is described in Geneve convention (I suppose?). Also USA wasn't in war against Afganistan, it was in war against Taliban and Al-Qaida.
Also it would be hard in US law system to really find them guilty of terrorism. The prisoners are members of the Al-Qaida terrorist organization and Talibans who support Al-Qaida and were guilty of very cruel things in Afganistan, so obviously it's not so easy for USA to just let those guys walk away, which would happen in any other case besides this.
If these guys were released and then would attack for example an airplane full of US and european people, I'm sure many would scream why did USA let them go...

Why should Al-Qaida members walk freely among us?

Sure about what exactly? That CIA put Saddam in power and he had nothing to do with it? Or that CIA "supported" Saddam as did many others with same criterias?
I'd really like to see any impartial info about this..

I really don't understand why you say that it would be hard for the US law system to find them guilty of terrorism. If there isn't a law about those people, then they have been kept illegally. But I really want you to clarify this, cause I'm not sure what do you mean.

Still, nobody ever asked for the releasing of these people, unless of course they are innocent, something which can be proved only through a trial. What I do ask for though is for a civilized treatment..and it seems that I'm not the only one who acknowledges that regardless of their crimes, these people have every right to be treated as any other prisoner.

NeoNeko said that they are POWs...if they are then they have denied them some of their rights as Amnesty International states. I'm quoting the following from AI's thesis:

So sad to see the intense bashing of the U.S. by so many Europeans. I guess it's easy to make us the excuse for every problem they see in the world.

To our European friends: You don't have to like anything about our culture to know that the U.S. is the best friend modern European countries have and have ever had. My father-in-law died in the service of this country helping with Eurpoen reconstruction after World War 2. Several of my mother's cousins died in WW2 fighting to free Europe.

Next time you drive by a U.S. military cemetery in Europe, take a good look. Those could be the last Americans who will die for Europe's freedom.

So it's ok, to release "innocent" Al-Qaida members.. ok.. Because that is what would happen if these guys were allowed to go to court. There wouldn't be enough evidence that these guys are "guilty of terrorism", and they would most probably walk out free.

I agree that they should be treated properly. What I've read, their situation is better now than in the beginning.

Simple. Because it's their right as human beings in a democracy. They are only suspects until proven guilty, and should be treated accordingly.

You're in a slippery slope when you give some people special treatment just because of what some of their friends have done and you can't prove anything on them personally. Next thing you know there will be discrimination agains people form their country, religion, race etc... This behaviour from the state doesn't belong in any just society. Period. Do you have any problems with that?

Let me see if I understand correctly...these guys aren't allowed (or better say, "they" don't allow them) to go to court, because there isn't enough evidence against them? How is this possible...aren't there international and domestic laws about terrorism? Don't those apply for them?

But still...if there aren't evidences, yes that's how it works, they must be released. It's not me who says so, but justice itself. If somebody hasn't broken the law or can't be proven that it has, then he should be free...simple as that.

Don't get me wrong...I hate terrorism as anybody else, but unless someone gets convicted about it, I can't accuse him beforehand. And I just can't simply keep him imprisoned forever denying him the right to go to court to prove his innocence or not.

That's not what Rumsfeld says. He refers to them as 'detainees' and 'unlawful combatants', not 'Prisoners of War'. That gives him a bit of a legal loophole, even if it is complete BS.

So it's ok for a terrorist supporter (or terrorist) to walk freely as long as you can't prove exactly what the person has done decisively in a court of law? You'd gladly go to the same airplane with this kind of person?

I totally agree, blue.

The worst laws of my country are those so called terrorist laws which allows for people (usually immigrants) to be convicted in courts without even hearing what they were accused of and thus never being able to defend themselves. To my knowledge they are not used so much anymore, but they still exist, and that's a shame to any country called a democracy. It looks as if USA is doing something similar to these so called terrorists held on Cuba, and that's a shame on them...

Yes!

Much more than living in a police state, where the police can arrest just anybody and put them in prison indefinately without any grounds.

I think so yes, but how are you going to prove decisively so that it's undisputable in a court that certain person captured somewhere from Afgan mountains by US soldiers is for example an Al-Qaida member? There are so many things which the defence can use.. especially now that they have been in Guantamo.
I don't know what would be the sentence if they are found to be a member of Al-Qaida, but nothing else. Would they get like 1-2 years in prison, and then released or what.. I don't know. But after 9/11, I do understand USA's point of view, although I understand the other point of view as well..

Gosh...not the same accusation again and again. I, as european, have nothing against US as a nation. My problem is the authorities and the decisions they take that affect my life as well as that of an entire planet. Why is it so difficult to understand this? Why do you keep thinking that we hate America, we want to go down in flames, sink like Atlantis etc?

I can name hundreds of things that I admire US for, but they have nothing to do with this war and they don't belong to this thread. Shit...even my mother was born and raised there.



This is pathetic...I don't even want to comment more on it

But since you believe that it's only Europeans who oppose to this war and bash constantly US, let's see how they see things some US citizens:

I don't have to repeat Michael Moore's point of view...just go back a few pages or visit his site.

Here's Sam Rosenthal's (owner of Projekt Records) opinion about this war...he is also an american citizen, and not just another european basher.



I can find countless other opinions from US citizens as well. After all the percentage of people who oppose to this world, if you consider the propaganda since US is very involved in this, is big.

Like in Iraq?

Anyway, I do think it's illegal by international law to be a member in a terrorist organization. So it's interesting that it would be ok for you if these guys walked freely and went to the same plane with you..

OMG I was exposed.

It's quite good, thanks.

How now? Thought truth is always on US side. B)