If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   British "human shields" told to find a target or go home. Intestinal fortitude nowhere to be found   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 314
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

11133 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Mar 2003 at 10:15 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



314 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-03-02 01:40:30 AM  
Infectious_brain_disease -- good link. The hypocrisy goes deep indeed.
 
2003-03-02 01:41:08 AM  
Is Ragna still here? I have the information of how Reagan knew about U.S. companies supplying Iraq with chemical weapons yet did nothing about it. Yet I am not going to type it unless I know that you are here.
 
2003-03-02 01:41:45 AM  
Theigorway....

I never said anything about a link between Iraq and al-qudida.

"Why don't you link to some evidence that supports your argument about Iraq's supposedly nefarious intentions?"

Link to an article before Sept 11 that said a terrorist network called al-quida would bring down the WTC.
 
2003-03-02 01:42:01 AM  
Jewing, you are holding up the lack ofTurkish support, as well as the support of France-a nation killing people in the Ivory Coast as we speak, as reason to doubt going to war is a good idea. Putting these nations forth, with their protests, as good reasons for delaying our military campaign, while they are opposed to it for reasons even more heinous. Their motivations are at least suspect, and your holding their protest up as evidence is to support their motivation for opposing our actions.

Your arguments that America is not morally entitled to attack Iraq are hollow when you neglect to take into account the activities of those you use as evidence.
 
2003-03-02 01:42:02 AM  
Theigorway-

Are you suggesting that you support every CIA opinion? Sounds like you cited the report because it support our arguement
 
2003-03-02 01:42:27 AM  
jeebus, i think it scares me more that hewlett packard knows about nuclear weapons than the fact they helped iraq.
 
2003-03-02 01:43:15 AM  
supports you arguement
 
2003-03-02 01:43:25 AM  
I believe you suggested a suitcase bomb. Did you have some other terrorist group in mind. Show us the evidence....

Personally, I think making war on a hunch is irresponsible.
 
2003-03-02 01:43:33 AM  
The fact that Turkey refused to allow our troops there may be one of the best things to happen. Now they can't expect to have that much influence if war occurs. This may make it easier to rule Iraq if Saddam goes.
 
2003-03-02 01:44:04 AM  
I have noticed you're not responding to my questions on your facts, especially regarding the reactor. I am suggesting that you are arguing a hollow point with no justification, opposing a force that will free the people of Iraq from a complete asshole, and hopefully will see a return to our practice of rebuilding nations as we did Germany and Japan.
 
2003-03-02 01:45:05 AM  
Nyctex -- when the President's own source of intelligence is contradicting his statements regarding Iraq and terrorism - it is worth noting.
 
2003-03-02 01:45:25 AM  
Zednaught:

Will you please grow up?

When did I state that it is not a good thing to attack Iraq?

You constantly point to statements that I never made. I should sue you for libel -- ha ha.
 
2003-03-02 01:45:42 AM  
 
2003-03-02 01:46:11 AM  
JAdamS:

If the U.S. eventually attacks, Turkey will probably fall in line behind the U.S.
 
2003-03-02 01:47:01 AM  
"I believe you suggested a suitcase bomb. Did you have some other terrorist group in mind. Show us the evidence...."

How about the support for Hezbollah? Thats one. as far as all known terrorist networks, the world is sadly full of many I am not aware of but that I'm sure Iraqi intelligence is.

And actually I suggest that WMD could be carried in a suitcase, I never said it would be a bomb.
 
2003-03-02 01:47:36 AM  
intelligence is a messy subject, not an exact science. I'm sure you could find any # of intelligence report supporting or contradicting any point of view.
 
2003-03-02 01:47:36 AM  
Zednaught:

I did respond to your reactor question.
 
2003-03-02 01:49:07 AM  
You misunderstand, Turkey does not "have" to be involved in Northern Iraq. At all. Their reason for being there and opposing our dealings there are insupportable.

Um, if you would quit watching the news, and start reading it, you would know that we just had two officials attend a meeting in Iraq, security provided by the US, with the leaders of Nearly All of Iraq's Kurds, many of whom we trained in those Eastern European Countries, Hungary included, for this war. Our government has quietly spoken ill of Turkey's Human Rights record with the Kurds, but since they are a nato ally, the politicians are spineless as always.

Control of the North of Iraq will also Enable america to get at the Kurdish/Al Qaeda group that currently controls a small area of Iraq, and which is fighting 'our' Kurds as we speak.

Read more Jewing.
 
2003-03-02 01:49:14 AM  
 
2003-03-02 01:50:06 AM  
Shut.....UP I'm waiting for the evidence not speculation. Maybe you'll be suggesting the Shining Path next?
 
2003-03-02 01:50:23 AM  
close enough link for me
 
2003-03-02 01:52:31 AM  
NYCTEX -- it wasn't a single report -- it was the CIA director testifying before the Senate. So, if the CIA doesn't think Iraq is a threat -- where is Bush getting his facts?

A war is a serious matter -- if Bush's evidence is so weak that the CIA director is willing to contradict him -- do you think it's worth a war?
 
2003-03-02 01:52:49 AM  
What you were quoting was a New York Times Article that quoted that senate report. Those lists of items are verbatim from the senate report.

Yes I am here. Please post the evidence, thank you.
 
2003-03-02 01:53:23 AM  
Here you go Zednaught, from a recent BBC report:

"As part of the price for their own troops to spring off from Turkey, the Americans are believed to have agreed in principle to the Turkish demand for forces to be involved.

"The Kurds insist they have no intention of doing any of these things and they say that Turkish intervention would be an unnecessary violation of Iraqi sovereignty."
 
2003-03-02 01:53:54 AM  
Gee, so those people I linked to on the reactor were full of it? Ah, I understand.

whatever..
 
2003-03-02 01:54:24 AM  
"I'm waiting for the evidence not speculation. Maybe you'll be suggesting the Shining Path next?"

What "evidence" do you want? The fact that he has these weapons? the fact that he's used these weapons? the fact that he supports terrorists? His expressed hatred of the US?

Oh I see you want a picture of saddam handing a suitcase full of anthrax to osama before you'll do anything.

Show me evidence saddam odes not have these weapons. show me the evidence he has not used these weapons. show me the evidence he has not supported terrorists.

I'm waiting...
 
2003-03-02 01:55:44 AM  
Shut........UP

By the way, Hezbollah is controlled by Syria, not Iraq.


http://www.holonet.khm.de/visual_alchemy/writings/hezbollah.html
 
2003-03-02 01:56:19 AM  
Look at the link under the article:

Pope urged to act as human shield. Like the Pope gives a fark about Arabs anyway. Crusades anyone?
 
2003-03-02 01:57:16 AM  
but has Iraq not pledged $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers for their terrorist activites? i cant remember where i read that...i guess ill go look now because you take anyones word anymore
 
2003-03-02 01:57:41 AM  
"By the way, Hezbollah is controlled by Syria, not Iraq"

They recieve support from Iraq also. They can do that you know. If I was Hezbolla I would take support from Syria nd Iraq if offered.

Maybe they have morals though and will only be one countries biatch.
 
2003-03-02 01:58:08 AM  
that should have said: you cant take anyones word anymore
 
2003-03-02 01:59:06 AM  
Shut.....UP -- I'm suggesting that the US bases its foreign policy based on facts, not speculation.

If we decided to make a policy of invading every country that hates us and has the potential to make WMD -- we'd be bankrupt long before we got to the end of the list.

By the way, in case you haven't noticed -- North Korea has nuclear weapons and has publically threatened us -- which is far more than Saddam has done. I don't see us mobilizing for war in the Far East anytime soon though.
 
2003-03-02 02:00:06 AM  
How's your Spanish?
 
2003-03-02 02:00:30 AM  
Iraq had Abu Nidal as its houseguest for decades, until just recently...Carlos the Jackal at one point called Baghdad home, suicide bombers in Palestine earn their families 25k every time they kill old women in Ice Cream Parlours. all of this with Saddam's blessing and involvement. There is Iraqi involvement with Terror.

Hezbollah is controlled by Syria, which occupies the country, Lebanon, Hezbollah is using to launch attacks on Israel which it says is occupying land....
An occupier paying guerillas to fight against occupation....
 
2003-03-02 02:01:46 AM  
The Kurds insist they have no intention of doing any of these things and

Jewing do you beleive that????

O they said they wont try to start there own country so we should beleive them. The first thing the Kurds will try to do is start there own country, and even though you dont know that you dont want that, nobody, except the kurds, want that. The second thing they will do is try to get nuclear weapons. Think about it.
 
2003-03-02 02:01:59 AM  
Oops. Let's try that again...


How's your Spanish?
 
2003-03-02 02:02:42 AM  
Oh yeah -- the CIA suggested that North Korea actually has a missle that could cross the pacific and hit the Western US. So, their threat to make US cities a "sea of fire" actually should be taken seriously.

If you really think "peace at any cost" shouldn't you be more concerned about North Korea than Iraq?
 
2003-03-02 02:02:50 AM  
Ragna:

As you are well aware, by the summer of 1983 Tehran was already reporting that Iraq was using chemical weapons against its troops for some time. The U.S. was well aware of the fact that Iraq was using these weapons. You can read the official document here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq24.pdf

In the document, the U.S. is also aware that the weapons are coming from "Western firms."

Also notice, in that report, how the U.S. is already looking for ways to manage Iraq's use of chemical weapons. Because they did not want Iraq to lose this war of "attrition" with Iran, the U.S. did not speak out publicly against the use of C.W., even though according to international law, due to the Geneva protocol, they would have to.

When Iran tried to submit a resolution to the U.N. demanding that they condemn Iraq's CW use, the U.S. delegate in the UN was instructed to get a "no decision" on the resolution. If that was not possible, the delegate was advised to abstain on the issue.

Here is another document: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq15.pdf

Here, in the middle of a war, in which it was using chemical weapons, the U.S. approved of sending "crop dusting" aircraft to Iraq. According to the CIA at the time, "Iraq experimented with using commercial crop sprayers for biological warfare."

The simple fact is that the U.S. was aware of the weapon use and instead of condemning it, tried to simply manage the news to make sure that Iraq was able to defeat Iran.
 
2003-03-02 02:03:33 AM  
Fact- Saddam was order under a ceasefire to disarm 12 yrs ago under threat removal from power.

Fact- Saddam has not disarmed

Fact- we will remove him

all facts - all logical
 
2003-03-02 02:03:34 AM  
"remember the crusades?"

hee hee...yup, the return of the Christians to land the Muslims evicted them from, so they could have Jerusalem...'cuz Mohammed flew there, thus it was theirs...

best one was the children's crusade, just kinda marched a whole bunch of kids in the direction of the middle east, then sold most of em to mediterranean slavers....cool.
 
2003-03-02 02:05:43 AM  
HoorayForBoobies:

When did I say that I believe it? When did I say that we should believe the Kurds? How do you know what I want?

I merely showed Zednaught a quote explaining how the U.S. is putting aside the concerns of the Kurds. Don't put words in my mouth. This seems to be a common habit of both you and Zednaught.
 
2003-03-02 02:05:59 AM  
Zednaught - hmm??? please explain your statement a bit more. Ah, screw this...I'd best not get involved!!
 
2003-03-02 02:07:49 AM  
"By the way, in case you haven't noticed -- North Korea has nuclear weapons and has publically threatened us -- which is far more than Saddam has done. I don't see us mobilizing for war in the Far East anytime soon though."

Can we take care of this one first? Besides we might be able to take care of Korea with one of those nice bribes Jewing likes.
 
2003-03-02 02:08:00 AM  
NYCTEX:

Oh, if only it were that simple.

Fact: The U.N. is still deciding whether Saddam has disarmed.

Fact: It is only the United States and Britain that say there is evidence that Saddam has not disarmed. Yet the U.N. weapons inspectors called U.S. evidence "garbage" in a recent report.

all facts - all logical

What is your rebuttal?
 
2003-03-02 02:08:23 AM  
theigorway, your facts about NOrth Korea illustrate exactly why we are doing 'nothing' about it, and why we want to dump Saddam right away. Hell, Pakistan got their missile tech from NK in exchange for nuke technology, and since NK is run by a nutter, there is a good chance he would give that tech to Saddam when able...would you sacrifice Atlanta in 10 years to get rid of hussein? Or do him now? He is killing his own citizens every day, televised punishments of ripping out tongues (look it up, it's out there) and executions are going on now, don't tell me it will only be worse after we come in.

North Korea needs to be taken care of, but let us keep our forces in check there, hell the South resents us, let us not 'conquer' the NOrth.
 
2003-03-02 02:09:05 AM  
NYCTEX -- Saddam has circumvented UN resoluions. And, if the UN deemed it necessary to send it a multi-lateral force to enforce it's resolutions, perhaps the US should participate. However, for the US to spend hundreds of billions and go in alone seems foolish.

But, are you being inconsistent? Earlier -- you supported invasion as a means to protect US citizens -- a dubious arguement, but more valid than unilaterally enforcing UN resoluions.
 
2003-03-02 02:11:02 AM  
which statement Monty? :-)
 
2003-03-02 02:11:14 AM  
Hey NYCTEX:

Based upon your logic, check this out:

Fact: Resolution 242: November 22, 1967 -- The Council emphasized "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and that "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territory occupied in the recent conflicts" was part of the "establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East."

Fact: Resolution 248: March 24, 1968 -- "Condemns the military action launched by Israel in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and the cease-fire resolutions," which was of a "large-scale and carefully planned nature."

Fact: Resolution 256: August 16, 1968 -- "Condemns the further military attacks launched by Israel in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and resolution 248 (1968) and warns that if such attacks were to be repeated, the Council would duly take account of the failure to comply with the present resolution."

Fact: Resolution 298: September 25, 1971 -- "Deplores the failure of Israel to respect the previous resolutions [Security Council resolutions 252 and 267, and General Assembly resolutions 2253 and 2254]," and "confirms in the clearest possible terms that all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties, transfer of populations and legislation aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section, are totally invalid and cannot change that status."

Fact: Resolution 347: April 24, 1974 -- "Condemns Israel's violation of Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty and calls once more on the Government of Israel to refrain from further military actions and threats against Lebanon. ... Calls upon Israel forthwith to release and return to Lebanon the abducted Lebanese civilians."

Fact: Resolution 515: July 29, 1982 -- "Demands that the Government of Israel lift immediately the blockade of the city of Beirut in order to permit the dispatch of supplies to meet the urgent needs of the civilian population and allow the distribution of aid provided by United Nations agencies and by non-governmental organizations."

Fact: Resolution 573: October 4, 1985 -- "Having noted with concern that the Israeli attack has caused heavy loss of human life and extensive material damage ... Condemns vigorously the act of armed aggression perpetuated by Israel against Tunisian territory in flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and norms of conduct."

Fact: Resolution 672: October 12, 1990 -- "Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli security forces resulting in injuries and loss of human life; calls upon Israel, the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War."

Fact: Resolution 1322: October 7, 2000 -- "Deplores the provocation carried out at Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem on 28 September 2000, and the subsequent violence there and at other Holy Places. ... Condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life."

Fact: Resolution 1435: September 24, 2002 -- "Alarmed at the reoccupation of Palestinian cities as well as the severe restrictions imposed on the freedom of movement of persons and good, and gravely concerned at the humanitarian crisis being faced by the Palestinian people."


Therefore, NYC, based upon your logic, someone could also say that the U.S. should invade Israel.
 
2003-03-02 02:12:25 AM  
Zednaught -- North Korea is provably an immediate threat.

I don't see any evidence that Iraq is a current of future threat to the US.

North Korea also seems far most irrational and likely to do something stupid.
 
2003-03-02 02:13:23 AM  
"It is only the United States and Britain that say there is evidence that Saddam has not disarmed."

OK, you anti-war people need to get your stories straight.

Either:
A. the CIA has reported that saddam will only use his WMD if he is attacked or
B. There is no evidence he has any.

Personaly, I would stick to "A", anyone who belives saddam just up and decided to get rid of the tons (tons) of WMD he had back in '98 (documented by inspectors) is living in a fairy tale world.
 
Displayed 50 of 314 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report