War With Iraq

[3eyedmonster]

So He Wasn’t Such A Treat After all!


Using a grenade to swash a fly when a fly swatter would have
done the job is hardly considered a triumph.
Where’s the honor in that?

Guess Saddam wasn’t such a BIG OL BAD ASS as the Bush
Administration painted him out to be. This just proves it.
What a waste of lives, solders and tax dollars.

The same results would have been less costly with UN backed inspections.

[The always right Andy Bayley]

first let me point out two things one stalin wasn't a failed dictator he was a damn good one staying power from the early 30's to mid 50's, thats a nice long riegn fora country that big and a man that evil as him. The point was that saddam will go down as one of those evil people that are talked about in history books.

Second No one was posting here for days until they could run bakc with news of looting.

Now to why I was right. Because I addressed the following lies and was right about all of them.

Lie #1-Iraq will turn into a vietnam because all the Iraqis hate Americans.

Fact- the Iraqis love us, as the parades show, also most interesting is that the fedayhin are mainly arabs from other countries(kind of reminds you of the terrorists in afghanistan, no?)

Lie #2- Saddam does not support terrorism.

Fact- A terrorist group, Al Ansar was blown to pieces by the kurds and US forces. Obtaining info from the Kurds and documents found, Al Ansar worked with saddam in fighting the kurds, as well as having plans to attack US with Biochem weapons.

Lie #3- Saddam doesnt have weapons of mass destruction.

FAct- its still early but our guys are finding scary stuff, especially the plutonium, as well as they have now found a biochem mobile unit(wenebago of death)

Lie #4- 100,000 civilians will die in this war.

Fact- at last check a few days ago the civilian death toll was right under a 1000.

Lie #5- Its wrong for us to go in and "invade" a foriegn country.

Fact- the Iraqis are glad we "invaded" thier country.

Let's clear one thing up about looting because I'm sure that's coming, the majority of the looting is of the baa'th party buildings the rest I hope they can subside soon but that is normal when a toltalitarian government falls.

[James Baster]

[s]Unregisted User The always right Andy Bayley wrote on 19:52, 11th Apr 2003:
Lie #1-Iraq will turn into a vietnam because all the Iraqis hate Americans.

Fact- the Iraqis love us, as the parades show, also most interesting is that the fedayhin are mainly arabs from other countries(kind of reminds you of the terrorists in afghanistan, no?)

A paper I read recently pointed out that saying "Iraqis love us" from the parades is looking at the peace marches and saying "All the world is against war!".

Try reading a british paper from one of their websites. Many Iraqis resent the invading forces. There are also many concerns about the future government of Iraq. While everyone is happy Saddam is gone, not everyone is happy with the method. Go look at the reaction the Arab world has to this and tell me American is now a safer place from terrorists.

Like I said before, you can't say anything yet. The Wars not over yet, and the civil unrest, the murder of the prominent cleric and trouble in North Iraq with the Kurds and Turkey all point to some very dangerous times ahead. It will be a couple of years before we can look at this properly and decide if we did the right thing.

As for your comment about looters attacking only Ba'ath party buldings, now the vast time span off, ohh 2 days, has show they have moved on to attacking hospitals, thus making you completely wrong. That goes to prove my point. Noone can draw any conclusions yet.



[hr]
[s]Come Robin. We shall leave. Through the window. Inconspicuously ... Using our batropes.[/s]

[Colin]

[s]The_Farwall wrote on 04:23, 10th Apr 2003:
I have to say, the Iraqi information minister has to be my all time favourite character in international politics.
His daily announcements of "War? What war, we killed them all yesterday. Again." and words to similar, and increasingly ridiculous, effect have been one of the funniest things on TV in the last 3 weeks.


As advertised in today's Times:

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com

Its damn good. Includes his best quotes, and various ideas on what his take on historic events would be. For example, Waterloo, that great French victory!!

[The_Farwall]

[s]Unregisted User The always right Andy Bayley wrote on 19:52, 11th Apr 2003:
Now to why I was right. Because I addressed the following lies and was right about all of them.

I've got nothing against self-confidence, but I really starting to get the feeling you love being you just that little bit too much.

Fact- the Iraqis love us, as the parades show, also most interesting is that the fedayhin are mainly arabs from other countries(kind of reminds you of the terrorists in afghanistan, no?)

That's strange, all of the news reports I've come across have distinctley specified 'Iraqi Suicide Bombers'. But then I suppose one as magnificent as you apparently think you are would have some kind of inside info on the real identities of these guys.
Incidentally doesn't it strike you that, seeing as people are travelling from so many countries around Iraq to fight against the coilitions forces, what a great shot in the arm this war will be for middle eastern peace. The farce of the US chairing the Israeli peace process whilst waging a war just a few doors down is only just beginning to hit me.
And, as most of the pro-war posters seem once again to be speaking under the misapprehension that anti-war means pro-sadam, I'd like to say that I did find it very moving to see how absolutely joyous many of the Iraqis have been. However, the entire way the process of ridding Iraq of Sadam Hussain was gone about seems to me roughly equivalent of getting rid of a brain tumour by taking a sledgehammer to your forehead.

Lie #3- Saddam doesnt have weapons of mass destruction.
FAct- its still early but our guys are finding scary stuff, especially the plutonium, as well as they have now found a biochem mobile unit(wenebago of death)

Now I haven't seen any news reports since Friday evening (after Mr Bayley posted his opinions) but the one thing I do remember seeing on those bullitins was a statement made by a US or UK chief of military intelligence stating that no evidence of W.O.M.D. had yet been found. He was confident that it would be but quite clearly admitted that it hadn't been yet -'FAct'

Fact- the Iraqis are glad we "invaded" thier country.

Again I'd say 'yes, appart from the exploding minority'.

Let's clear one thing up about looting because I'm sure that's coming, the majority of the looting is of the baa'th party buildings the rest I hope they can subside soon but that is normal when a toltalitarian government falls.

I can't say I'm particularly sure of the relevance of looting to the morality of the war but I do have to say that, unless the Baa'th party happened to run banks and UN enclosures, then the looting isn't mostly from the Baa'th party.
I would say that this looting is to be entirely expected, the people are impoverished and suddenly find themselves without an effective police force and with stores of great wealth nearby (probably the presiding reason why Baa'th stuff is being heavily targetted), but again it would seem that your 'FAct' isn't.

[hr][s]"you complain about an overflowing cup.
don't forget that i'm the one who filled that fucker up."[/s]

[Andy Bayley]

[s]James Baster wrote on 02:03, 13th Apr 2003:
[s]Unregisted User The always right Andy Bayley wrote on 19:52, 11th Apr 2003:[i]
Lie #1-Iraq will turn into a vietnam because all the Iraqis hate Americans.

Fact- the Iraqis love us, as the parades show, also most interesting is that the fedayhin are mainly arabs from other countries(kind of reminds you of the terrorists in afghanistan, no?)

A paper I read recently pointed out that saying "Iraqis love us" from the parades is looking at the peace marches and saying "All the world is against war!".

Try reading a british paper from one of their websites. Many Iraqis resent the invading forces. There are also many concerns about the future government of Iraq. While everyone is happy Saddam is gone, not everyone is happy with the method. Go look at the reaction the Arab world has to this and tell me American is now a safer place from terrorists.

Like I said before, you can't say anything yet. The Wars not over yet, and the civil unrest, the murder of the prominent cleric and trouble in North Iraq with the Kurds and Turkey all point to some very dangerous times ahead. It will be a couple of years before we can look at this properly and decide if we did the right thing.

As for your comment about looters attacking only Ba'ath party buldings, now the vast time span off, ohh 2 days, has show they have moved on to attacking hospitals, thus making you completely wrong. That goes to prove my point. Noone can draw any conclusions yet.



[hr]
[s]Come Robin. We shall leave. Through the window. Inconspicuously ... Using our batropes.[/s]
[/i]


Much like looting the hospital the iraqi's against the war are the exception to the rule, and for the record I occasionally check out the guardian and observer when they have good articles.

[Andy Bayley]

[s]The_Farwall wrote on 03:18, 13th Apr 2003:
[s]Unregisted User The always right Andy Bayley wrote on 19:52, 11th Apr 2003:[i]

I've got nothing against self-confidence, but I really starting to get the feeling you love being you just that [i]little bit too much.[/i]

I'm not quite sure if it's possible to love yourself to much.

That's strange, all of the news reports I've come across have distinctley specified 'Iraqi Suicide Bombers'. But then I suppose one as magnificent as you apparently think you are would have some kind of inside info on the real identities of these guys.

the majority of the attempted suicided bombers and there's only been a few have been found to be foriegners, not iraqis. Obviously the entire country of Iraq doesn't like us, but I'm willing to bet bush's approval numbers are higher in Iraq than the US.

Incidentally doesn't it strike you that, seeing as people are travelling from so many countries around Iraq to fight against the coilitions forces, what a great shot in the arm this war will be for middle eastern peace. The farce of the US chairing the Israeli peace process whilst waging a war just a few doors down is only just beginning to hit me.

no these are the islamic fundamentalists it should surprise you that they are the ones defending saddam to the death not his own citizens. There will never be peace in the middle east until islam fundamentism is gone or at least severely weakened.

And, as most of the pro-war posters seem once again to be speaking under the misapprehension that anti-war means pro-sadam, I'd like to say that I did find it very moving to see how absolutely joyous many of the Iraqis have been. However, the entire way the process of ridding Iraq of Sadam Hussain was gone about seems to me roughly equivalent of getting rid of a brain tumour by taking a sledgehammer to your forehead.

the how would you get rid of saddam, sanctions?

[brother peace]

Now that Baghdad has fallen, here's my question to peaceniks: Are you against killing, or are you against war? Because what happened in Iraq suggests you may have to choose.

The precision of military technology is constantly improving. So are the speed and breadth of mass media, which in turn make public relations crucial to military success. As a result, the rate of civilian casualties is declining from war to war. According to the Vietnamese government, 2 million North Vietnamese civilians and 2 million South Vietnamese civilians died in the Vietnam War. Human Rights Watch estimates that in the Persian Gulf War, "the total number of civilians killed directly by allied attacks did not exceed several thousand, with an upper limit of perhaps between 2,500 and 3,000 Iraqi dead." In the Kosovo war, HRW identified "ninety separate incidents involving civilian deaths during the seventy-eight day bombing campaign. Some 500 Yugoslav civilians are known to have died in these incidents."

There are no official civilian death figures for the current war, but estimates in today's newspapers range from 600 to 1,100. That includes people killed or used as shields by Iraqi troops. The number of civilians killed by errant coalition bombs or missiles could be half of that. It could be less; it could be more. Either way, it's well below the figure for the Gulf War and way below the figures for previous wars.

Compare this to the number of people Saddam has killed at home and abroad. According to the Federation of American Scientists, in the Iran-Iraq War, which Saddam started, "[E]stimates suggest more than one and a half million war and war-related casualties. ? Iran's losses may have included more than 1 million people killed or maimed. The war claimed at least 300,000 Iranian lives." HRW says Saddam's slaughter of the Kurds included "the mass murder and disappearance of many tens of thousands of non-combatants?50,000 by the most conservative estimate," and "the use of chemical weapons against non-combatants in dozens of locations, killing thousands." Then there was the invasion of Kuwait, and the annihilation of Shiites in Iraq's southern marshes. According to HRW, "Numbering some 250,000 people as recently as 1991, the Marsh Arabs today are believed to number fewer than 40,000 in their ancestral homeland. Many have been arrested, 'disappeared,' or executed." As for Saddam's current kill rate, HRW reports, "It is not possible to determine with certainty the number of people executed by law or government order in Iraq each year. For the past two decades and with depressing regularity, the reported figures for those executed have run into the hundreds each year and, in some years, have reached several thousand."

Simply put, the number of innocent people who are dead because we ousted Saddam is dwarfed by the number of innocent people who are dead because we didn't. The use of American force is on one side of the ledger, and mass killing is on the other. Trends in military and media technology make this dilemma increasingly likely where belligerent murderers rule. You can keep your hands clean, or you can keep many more people alive. It's up to you.

[Buzzboy]

Peacenik?

Drop the insinuations of communism when refering to anti-war protestors and I might even let you off the gross over-simplification of the issue.

Actually I'm against the flagrant breaches of international law that the US government takes regularly to ensure its own interests are looked after. I am also worried that the current US administration is ensuring that the US signature isn't worth the paper it is written on (just ask the Palistinians).

It just so happens that the result of this particular breach resulted in war. I was also against the dumping of the Kyoto agreement by the US too and that didn't result in war.

I am not a 'peacenik' although I strongly opposed this war. Why? Because I believe that international cooperation and global unity are the only this that will save the human race from running itself into the ground.

[Guest]

The problem is that the peaceniks don't want to admit they were wrong. They just can't come to the realization that the US/UK lead coalition actually did something good.

[Cain]

just remember kids, you can't make a freedom omelette without breaking a few international law eggs.

Get your war on!

[Andy_Bayley]

[s]Unregisted User Buzzboy wrote on 15:14, 16th Apr 2003:
Peacenik?

Drop the insinuations of communism when refering to anti-war protestors and I might even let you off the gross over-simplification of the issue.

the majority of protesters aren't communists they are pawns of communist. The socialist/communist group Anser is the predominate funder of us protest rallies. If the protest rally wanted any merit they should not allow anti american signs at thier protests because it gives them a bad name. Like "we support our troops, that shoot thier officers". Thats not very peacelike but was at a san fransisco rally.

Actually I'm against the flagrant breaches of international law that the US government takes regularly to ensure its own interests are looked after. I am also worried that the current US administration is ensuring that the US signature isn't worth the paper it is written on (just ask the Palistinians).

the more and more I learn about the palistineans I'm becoming disgusted with them. The actual palistine is a large landmass that includes many countries but they only attack the jews. And why on earth would these people blow them self up to live in a dictatorship? Our the Israelis perfect no but they are not the cause of this. The whole reason this occupation is an issue is because Isreal is run by jews. Where is the outrage of Syria Occupying lebanon(who are much worse to thier people).

It just so happens that the result of this particular breach resulted in war. I was also against the dumping of the Kyoto agreement by the US too and that didn't result in war.

were you against India and china being exempt from it?

I am not a 'peacenik' although I strongly opposed this war. Why? Because I believe that international cooperation and global unity are the only this that will save the human race from running itself into the ground.


what did international cooperation do for the people of iraq the last twelve years let them starve on sanctions and live under a brutal dictator

[Buzzboy]

Sorry, are you trying to suggest that the Israelis are less to blame for the crisis than the Palestinians?

I certainly do not support the terrorist attacks against innocent Israeli civilians, but can you blame the anti-semitic sentiment in the Palestinian people when the Israeli government is headed by a man who stood by and allowed Palestinians to be ruthlessly slaughtered by fundamentalist militia whilst supposedly under his protection?
A man who allows his troops, the soldiers of a democratic nation, to behave in a similar way to the fanatical terrorists they are supposed to be protecting Israel against by sactioning seemingly random shootings of women and children at boarder checkpoints and indiscriminate rocket and shell attacks on palestinian settlements.

The cause of the problem is neither the Israelis or the Palestinians, but the antagonism, suspicion, hatred and lack of cooperation that has built up around them.

However, this is digression...

When the US government signs diplomatic contracts, it should be expected to honour them. The N. Ireland peace process should teach people that sometimes the only way to deal with terrorists is by give and take, and while this may be morally repugnant to some, may be the only way to make progress.

As for the Iraqi people, what do I foresee for them? A US supported free-market power structure which allows a few individuals to gain control of Iraq's oil wealth, thus creating a ruling, wealthy elite whilst the majority of the population live in abject poverty much like other oil-rich nations such as Saudi Arabia. A massive leap forward for the Iraqi people, not.

[Andy Bayley]

[s]Unregisted User Buzzboy wrote on 16:46, 17th Apr 2003:
Sorry, are you trying to suggest that the Israelis are less to blame for the crisis than the Palestinians?

I certainly do not support the terrorist attacks against innocent Israeli civilians, but can you blame the anti-semitic sentiment in the Palestinian people when the Israeli government is headed by a man who stood by and allowed Palestinians to be ruthlessly slaughtered by fundamentalist militia whilst supposedly under his protection?
A man who allows his troops, the soldiers of a democratic nation, to behave in a similar way to the fanatical terrorists they are supposed to be protecting Israel against by sactioning seemingly random shootings of women and children at boarder checkpoints and indiscriminate rocket and shell attacks on palestinian settlements.

I'm fairly certain your talking about Sharon. I'm not that familiar with the details of his atrocities although I'm certain they occured after the palistinean uprisings. Which the only reason they wouldn't want to live under a democracy in Israel is because of hate of the jews


When the US government signs diplomatic contracts, it should be expected to honour them. The N. Ireland peace process should teach people that sometimes the only way to deal with terrorists is by give and take, and while this may be morally repugnant to some, may be the only way to make progress.

I fail to see your connection to the iraq war.


As for the Iraqi people, what do I foresee for them? A US supported free-market power structure which allows a few individuals to gain control of Iraq's oil wealth, thus creating a ruling, wealthy elite whilst the majority of the population live in abject poverty much like other oil-rich nations such as Saudi Arabia. A massive leap forward for the Iraqi people, not.


I hope not but it would be a leap forward anyway.

[Buzzboy]

Actually, the massacre of Palestinian civilians by falange militia occured in Beirut in Lebanon in the 80's while Sharon was Defence Minister well before the current Intafada.
Claiming Ignorance of this is not a very good argument.

Did the US sign the UN charter, or am I just making it up? If so, the honouring of diplomatic contracts is VERY relevant to the Iraq war.

So you believe an oppresive regime which is guilty of serious human rights abuses is a step forward for the Iraqi people, bearing in mind they had an oppresive regime that was guilty of serious human rights abuses in the first place?

You blind support for the Israelis is quite unnerving. Claiming that palestinians are acting the way they are (the intafada) fueled solely an anti-semitic feeling is to ignore the vast majority of the palestinian population and focus on the terrorists. Maybe the palestinians are a little bit upset that half a century ago their country was taken from them by individual whos' justification was based on a piece of literature that can hardly be accused of presenting true, unbiased historical fact (the bible) and being placed under a jewish run 'democracy' where they are treated like 2nd class citizens and they religious and social concerns are totally ignored.

Maybe we should be addressing the issue of why the Israelis (especially Ariel Sharon) hate the palestinians.

[flarewearer]

[s]Cain wrote on 19:34, 16th Apr 2003:
just remember kids, you can't make a freedom omelette without breaking a few international law eggs.

Get your war on!


thats stalin;

"you can't make an omellette without breaking any eggs"...

[hr]
* 9 out of 10 cannibals agree;
"vegetarians taste BETTER"

[Guest]

[s]flarewearer wrote on 00:41, 21st Apr 2003:

thats stalin;

"you can't make an omellette without breaking any eggs"...




Actually Joseph Chamberlin coined the phrase first.

[Free Free Palestine]

Actually, the massacre of Palestinian civilians by falange militia occured in Beirut in Lebanon in the 80's while Sharon was Defence Minister well before the current Intafada.
Claiming Ignorance of this is not a very good argument.


I would have to find more out about that before I could argue that.

Did the US sign the UN charter, or am I just making it up? If so, the honouring of diplomatic contracts is VERY relevant to the Iraq war.

resolution 1441 meant war the security council voted for it and then france blocked the vote the second time around. So really we never breached the charter but it's a joke anyway if the rest of the world won't do whats right the US has to. Along with our allies of course.

So you believe an oppresive regime which is guilty of serious human rights abuses is a step forward for the Iraqi people, bearing in mind they had an oppresive regime that was guilty of serious human rights abuse in the first place?

I thought you were refferring to just the iraqi people being poverty stricken I doubt they will go back to an oppressive regime. Poverty and abusive human rights government is worse than just poverty. That being said I do hope they find a fair way to to help all of the people of Iraq prosper with out reading through any books written by Karl Marx of course.

You blind support for the Israelis is quite unnerving. Claiming that palestinians are acting the way they are (the intafada) fueled solely an anti-semitic feeling is to ignore the vast majority of the palestinian population and focus on the terrorists. Maybe the palestinians are a little bit upset that half a century ago
when was palistine a country? And the territory of palistine includes a couple of other countries why arent they angry at them and blowing up the arab citizens of those countries? Wait i know, antisemitism.

their country was taken from them by individual whos' justification was based on a piece of literature that can hardly be accused of presenting true, unbiased historical fact (the bible) and being placed under a jewish run 'democracy' where they are treated like 2nd class citizens and they religious and social concerns are totally ignored. they are treated a hell of lot better in isreal than they are in say syria. There had been jews in jeruselem and the areas around there for the last 100 years one of the two peoples were going to get screwed. Do to 6 million people getting killed it was the arabs.

Maybe we should be addressing the issue of why the Israelis (especially Ariel Sharon) hate the palestinians.


I know this one they blow up inocent civilians on purpose, even then at least half of isreal doesn't hate the palestinians. Even Shimon Perez and Ehud Barak(who's boss, Yitzak Rabin was assassinated by a palistinean) stilled tried to negotiate. Palestines problems is they won't crack down on thier militants. Theres hope now that they have a prime minister but it looks like Arafat(a well known terrorist mind you) is pulling the strings still. Just another problem caused by islamic fundamentalism.

[Cain]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 01:01, 21st Apr 2003:
[s]flarewearer wrote on 00:41, 21st Apr 2003:[i]

thats stalin;

"you can't make an omellette without breaking any eggs"...




Actually Joseph Chamberlin coined the phrase first.

possibly. the point was, it was another attempt to get people to read Get your war on at http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html

And although he may have broken a few international law eggs, i can't imagine Stalin making a freedom omelette

[Jeff]

According to the channel 4 news, at least 40% of americans regard themselves as fundamentalist christians. This sounds like an awful lot, but even if it is 40% of christians instead, it still scares me. Fundamentalist anything usually equals little tolerance of other peoples beliefs.