I've always said France and Belgium were useless.. This proves my point

[JustPat]

Originally posted by takeo not out of hand? restraint? Relations between western nations have never been as poisoned since more than 50 years... opposition to us-policy all over the world hasn't been larger since the end of the cold-war...

Don't believe everything you read in your propaganda mills.

Originally posted by takeo Do you remember pig bay? This was BEFORE the rocket-crisis. Ever since the Russians exported their ICBM's the us has never again invaded Cuba...
And since this time in history the us has used WMD against Cuba, more exactly biological weapons to harm their agriculture.

Facts, takeo, give us documented, substantiated facts. Today the US has made more funds available to rebuild Cuba than any other country. After Castro, watch who it will be the Cubans run to for freedom.

Originally posted by takeo Yep, good friends and staunch allies, that's right. also the Kurds hold the Turkish army in high regard... you can read at the websites of international human rights groups why exactly...
did you say something about countries using weapons against their own population?

Yep, fighting an evil dactoror who violates human rights by supporting upon another regime that violates human rights just as well...

Since you are so compassionate toward the Kurds, you must know their history. Why are they known as the wild dogs of the ME?

[christian]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JustPat
A little shy on the facts aren't you. The US maintains a presence in many countries around the world. If we were "unwanted" in South Korea, we would gladly leave. Our troops are today in places like the Philipines, Japan, Germany, and others as a result of our commitment ot protect our allies. Hey, let's pull them out, let them fend for themselves. Who needs a free world anyway!

The US troops never withdrawl willingly. This is a shy facts.


Whose propaganda mill did this come from?

It is not propaganda. It is a fact.
Sounds like a plan, but I think I'd cut France, Germany, and Belgium out of the deal.

Yeah. sure. I forget to mention a new axis will be form. You will lose japan, germany, france, and Russian as your ally status.
Japan is not pro-US on this issue of Iraq either, because PM knows it is directly against Japan interest. Although, the government gives a ambiguous supports. This is call diplomacy.

Not to mention, Saudi arabia.....



1. We will be successful in our enforcement of the demand that Iraq disarm. Our troops will liberate Iraq.
2. It is the radical Islamists who are the threat and must be eradicated like so many rats.
3. You are absolutely right, it won't be Nam. This time we set ourselves to be victorious without playing political footsie with our enemies.

Wow. Scary.
By the way, your military is not that strong. It is demonstrated in the history. They have all those equipment, protecting themselves from harm. Unfortunately, it is war. People do blow things up....

[JustPat]

Originally posted by christian [6 million killed in Nam] is not propaganda. It is a fact.

Just saying it is fact doesn't make it so. The statistical abstract certified by the Vietnamese quotes the death toll at 1.1 million.

Originally posted by christian Yeah. sure. I forget to mention a new axis will be form. You will lose japan, germany, france, and Russian as your ally status.
Japan is not pro-US on this issue of Iraq either, because PM knows it is directly against Japan interest. Although, the government gives a ambiguous supports. This is call diplomacy.

Not to mention, Saudi arabia.....

Smoke getting in your eyes?

Originally posted by christian Wow. Scary.
By the way, your military is not that strong. It is demonstrated in the history. They have all those equipment, protecting themselves from harm. Unfortunately, it is war. People do blow things up....

Some people fight hard, others fight smart. In every major war we have fought the US has been a statistical underdog, only to win in the end. Watch, you will soon see how strong the US military is.

[christian]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JustPat
Just saying it is fact doesn't make it so. The statistical abstract certified by the Vietnamese quotes the death toll at 1.1 million.
Smoke getting in your eyes?


Your estimation is only based upon troops causulties.

http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

The Hanoi government revealed on April 4 that the true civilian casualties of the Vietnam War were 2,000,000 in the north, and 2,000,000 in the south. Military casualties were 1.1 million killed and 600,000 wounded in 21 years of war. These figures were deliberately falsified during the war by the North Vietnamese Communists to avoid demoralizing the population.

Note: Given a Vietnamese population of approximately 38 million during the period 1954-1975, Vietnamese casualties represent a good 12-13% of the entire population. To put this in perspective, consider that the population of the US was 220 million during the Vietnam War. Had The US sustained casualties of 13% of its population, there would have been 28 million US dead.


Some people fight hard, others fight smart. In every major war we have fought the US has been a statistical underdog, only to win in the end. Watch, you will soon see how strong the US military is.

In the vietnam war 12% of the entire vietnam population is dead. Certainly, anything beside the jewish blood is unimportant for you.

It is harsh,but I wish you send your self to Iraqi war. Instead of complaining in the board, how you like the spill the blood of iraqi and arabs with nuclear weapon. Which non of them is directly involve with Al Queda.

About your comment on military, like chris pattern said " It is better to raise a quizzical eyebrow, than return of meaningless insult."

[takeo]

Don't believe everything you read in your propaganda mills.

On the contrary to some other posters here I do base my observations and opinion on several different sources.

Facts, takeo, give us documented, substantiated facts. Today the US has made more funds available to rebuild Cuba than any other country. After Castro, watch who it will be the Cubans run to for freedom.

Whenever do you provide facts?

But ok, for your convenience:

"1971: U.S. ends direct use of herbicides such as Agent Orange; had spread over Indochinese forests, and destroyed at least six percent of South Vietnamese cropland, enough to feed 600,000 people for a year. U.S. intelligence source gives swine-flu virus to anti-Castro Cuban paramilitary group, which lands it on Cuba's southern coast (according to1977 newspaper reports).

1972: Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention. Cuba accuses CIA of instilling swine fever virus that leads to death of 500,000 hogs.

1979: Washington Post reports on U.S. program against Cuban agriculture since 1962, including CIA biological warfare component."


Your second sentence is just downright ridiculous. the US legislation even forbids any direct investment in Cuba, while European countries such as France invested billions in both economical projects and social and cultural devellopment aid (such as the reconstruction of Habana Vieja), while our tourists remain the most important source of income for Cuba.Obviously you don't know what you're talking about.
I don't know what'll happen after Castro dies, the economical condition in Cuba is not very good since the collapse of the Soviet-Union and the Torricelli-law still there is less poverty than in many other caraibian and central American neighbouring countries. The political situation seems to be very stable, among the people on the street you can find both staunch supporters and adversaries (mostly people with family in the us) of communism.

Since you are so compassionate toward the Kurds, you must know their history. Why are they known as the wild dogs of the ME?

Interesting, so the Iraqi Kurds being oppressed by Saddam are heros, innocent victims and freedomfighters, while the Kurds fighting exactly the same oppression and by the same means but in Turkey are wild dogs...

Another very obvious illustration of your double standard...

[JustPat]

Originally posted by christian Your estimation is only based upon troops causulties.

So you want me to take the word of people who say, 20 years after the fact, "We lied. Sorry. You can believe us now." Until there is proof to back such claims they are of no value, no matter who posts them.

Originally posted by christian It is harsh,but I wish you send your self to Iraqi war. Instead of complaining in the board, how you like the spill the blood of iraqi and arabs with nuclear weapon. Which non of them is directly involve with Al Queda.

1) I never even suggested the use of nuclear weapons on Iraq. That is a propaganda line pushed forward by leftists seeking to control people with fear.
2) Regarding posting, the pot calls the kettle black.

Originally posted by christian About your comment on military, like chris pattern said " It is better to raise a quizzical eyebrow, than return of meaningless insult."

If you take that as an insult,

[JustPat]

takeo:

I did not argue with the use of WMD in Viet Nam. I asked you to show recent evidence of such behavior. What happened thirty years ago and what we will do next month are worlds apart. The mindset of the US has changed, the technology has changed, and the environment is totally different.

[christian]

Originally posted by JustPat
takeo:

I did not argue with the use of WMD in Viet Nam. I asked you to show recent evidence of such behavior. What happened thirty years ago and what we will do next month are worlds apart. The mindset of the US has changed, the technology has changed, and the environment is totally different.

I like your american humour about American mindset has changed.
12 years ago Uranium shell in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2564509.stm

Here is a question for you.
What do you mean using nukes at the bunker? I don't mean the technical term. Bunker probably means the city of Bagdad.

Obviously, this information is so innocent to you. Just as when the American drops agent orange, they said every n.vietnamese is hiding in the bunker. It turns out, the civilian is being slaugther as well.

True. The technology has changed. Except, the weapon is much more powerful. It is much destructive than vietnam.

[christian]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JustPat
So you want me to take the word of people who say, 20 years after the fact, "We lied. Sorry. You can believe us now." Until there is proof to back such claims they are of no value, no matter who posts them.


This link is provided by American history channel.

So, are you discrediting American history channel?

1) I never even suggested the use of nuclear weapons on Iraq. That is a propaganda line pushed forward by leftists seeking to control people with fear.
2) Regarding posting, the pot calls the kettle black.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2564509.stm

You never support nukes. Your government do.

What kind left wing propangda that you are suggesting?

The link is from BBC. A stauch pro-UK website which is a supporter of UK government.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by christian
12 years ago Uranium shell in Iraq.

Here is a question for you.
What do you mean using nukes at the bunker? I don't mean the technical term. Bunker probably means the city of Bagdad.

True. The technology has changed. Except, the weapon is much more powerful. It is much destructive than vietnam.

Your chariot will go nowhere pulled by dead horses. You don't know enough about the depleted uranium to know what you are talking about, and I am not going to try and educate you further.

I did not, I repeat, did not nor will I suggest that we have any intention of using nukes.

And yes the technology has vastly improved adn made surgical strikes more powerful, more effective, and more deadly to their intended targets. We will not intentionally target civilians. We would even try to prtect your scrawny human shield butt if you had guts enough to go.

[tandem]

takeo:

>>>'Perhaps so, but certainly not the majority of demonstrators. the most participants were normal people who normally don't participate in demonstrations and who do not want to see a war destabilising the world, a totally unnecessary was in their eyes that will make lots of innocent victims.'<<<

few demonstrators are what you call "normal" people are protesting war against iraq, and the vast majority of protestors use demonstrations like that to show support for the arabs, the PLO, etc. nothing to do with iraq really if you ask me

besides, if it is like you said, that people are concerned that war against iraq will "destablize" the world, why not a protest against saddam hussein and his regime? no such mass demonstrations are taking place. saddam hussein is, after all, the key destablizing force in the region, a total nutcase, and right now, after 12 years of defying UN resolutions that he signed to end the gulf war, he is being given yet another opportunity to disarm peacefully by the inspectors of the united nations, not force. so, why protest against the americans, and especially against the israelis who has nothing to do with this?? the faith of the iraqi people ultimately rests with saddam hussein, not the americans

>>>'iraq undermines its credibility if it would do so anyway'<<<

iraq already undermines its credibility, takeo. the fact that they are not being forthcoming about their chemical and biological agents program, the fact that they have missiles that exceed the permitted range set by the UN, the fact that saddam hussein is shipping illegal oil quotas to finance the development of weapons that he is prohibited to have. are you actually willing to take the word of saddam hussein and his diabolical regime that they have absolutely no WMDs, that they are fully complying with UN? if the iraqi regime was in full compliance with UN resolutions, we wouldn't be where we are today

>>>'Even if the regime crumbles Saddam and his cronies would have a wide range of places to form a government in exile and continue the war against the us-occupation.'<<<

if he goes into exile, which will in all probability be an arab country, then that country has the responsibility to keep him on a short leash, especially if the arabs themselves arrange the exile

>>>'pre-emption is a very dangerous and illegal practise.
It's like saying "this man looks dangerous, let's kill him"...'<<<

in most cases, pre-emption is an effective policy. if israel would have never destroyed the osirak nuclear plant, iraq would have had nuclear weapons by the time of the gulf war. this would have changed the outcome of the war remarkably. your analogy of pre-emption in this case is wrong

>>>'If you know all this, than i'm sure hans blix will know as well, he has spoken as well with defected iraqi scientists and even with iraqi scientists still in iraq. he has all information available andhas special technology to detect wmd. He visited all sites indicated by the us and GB as "sites of WMD"'<<<

and blix said just that, that he is not getting the "fullest" co-operation from iraq, that there are still many lingering questions about iraq's disarmament program, especially from the time UN weapons inspectors were banned from iraq. and just because blix didn't find anything there, it doesn't mean there is nothing at these locations. there is no way to check every single square inch of every facility, and like iraqi scientists said, everything is being moved around constantly to avoid detection, and for sure there are new facilities that western intelligence are not aware of

>>>'actually the regime tries to sell the idea to its population but not very succesfull. Kouweiti's are wary of Saddam for natural reasons, but they do not support a war. The last parliamentory elections were won by a party opposed to kouweiti support for an American war against iraq.'<<<

this means very little. it is almost exactly the same thing in turkey. the party that won the recent elections are fiercely opposed a US-led war against iraq, let alone let the americans to use the bases in turkey to launch strikes against the iraqis. but today, it was announced that a multi-billion dollar deal with the americans was reached and it looks like the turkish government will, after all, allow the US to use the military bases there. the situation is slightly different in kuwait. the people there know that once saddam hussein will have a nuclear weapon, it will only be a matter of time before he threatens kuwait again. i will emphasize this again: kuwait has a huge oil reserves, which means billions of $$ of profit to saddam hussein. he believes kuwait belongs to iraq. do the math yourself. because of that, many kuwaitis, or at least many moderate ones, support removing saddam hussein's regime by force if necessary

>>>'as i said before he's not going to do so. Iraq suffered greatly from its mistake to invade kouweit in 1990 and will not repeat such a mistake. Iraq is never going to threaten the us or any western state with nuclear weapons since Iraq doesn't have a chance against us or European technology.'<<<

all this "technology" can be rendered useless. once he has a nuclear bomb, saddam hussein will start a campaign of aggression against other countries in the middle east; kuwait and israel for sure, perhaps saudi arabia or any moderate arab states who are ally of the americans. he is insane after all, it's not like he has to justify anything. a nuclear bomb will truly give him infinite power, and any country thats stands in his way will pay the price. the nuclear bomb doesn't necessarily have to be delivered by a missile to america or mainland europe

[christian]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JustPat
Your chariot will go nowhere pulled by dead horses. You don't know enough about the depleted uranium to know what you are talking about, and I am not going to try and educate you further.

I did not, I repeat, did not nor will I suggest that we have any intention of using nukes.

Yes. You are. Although, you have no intention. Your government represent you for your "intention" to use nuke.

What do you think war is? Even thousands of anti-war protester is against the war in UK. The government is the official representative of Britain. Therefore, disregard the 80% population anti-war protesting, the people who is for peace, will be drag into a war.

Tony Blair is the only representative for the anti-war protester, disregarding the wishing of the anti-war protester. Therefore, the arabs will hit Britain, disregarding the innocent people for peace.




And yes the technology has vastly improved adn made surgical strikes more powerful, more effective, and more deadly to their intended targets. We will not intentionally target civilians. We would even try to prtect your scrawny human shield butt if you had guts enough to go.

Really. Proof?
It is a guerilla warfare. How do you have surgical strike????
Although, I am not experts in military affair, but I do know what is guerilla warfare is.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by christian
Although, I am not experts in military affair, but I do know what is guerilla warfare is.

You are not an expert on many things, but it doesn't keep you from trying to talk about them.

This is not guerilla warfare. This will be fought in the open, face to face. We wil not be hiding and striking from secret nests. The Iraqi's may be hiding, but it won't be to gain the advantage in the fight. It will be cowering in fear, or have we forgotten the "Hundred Hours War?"

[takeo]

I did not argue with the use of WMD in Viet Nam. I asked you to show recent evidence of such behavior. What happened thirty years ago and what we will do next month are worlds apart. The mindset of the US has changed, the technology has changed, and the environment is totally different.

The mindset of iraq has changed, the technology has changed and the environment and circumstances are totally different than when iraq used wMD, still you use it as an argument to bomb Iraq...

By the way i really doubt that the mindset of the us has changed, they still think to have the right to intervene anywhere on the globe and use whatever means necessary to achieve their goals.

You said "Facts, takeo, give us documented, substantiated facts. Today the US has made more funds available to rebuild Cuba than any other country. After Castro, watch who it will be the Cubans run to for freedom"
That's exactly what i did concerning Cuba.

And yes the technology has vastly improved adn made surgical strikes more powerful, more effective, and more deadly to their intended targets. We will not intentionally target civilians. We would even try to prtect your scrawny human shield butt if you had guts enough to go.

well, 1999 isn't a very long time ago, is it? please don't tell me that the technology changed spectacularly during the last 3 years. i visited Yugoslavia after the us-strikes and can assure you that the strikes were anything but surgical: some examples: hospitals, refugees, villages, a passengers train, plastic tanks (the Serbs were superb defenders) the chinese ambassy (altough i doubt that this was a mistake) while only 1/15th of the Serbian tanks were destroyed and even less military.
The US basically still uses the same technology as in the 70's, only the airforce has spectacularly improved during 20 years.
because the Iraqi strategy is to hide their troops in the big cities the number of casualties in this ground-war will be incredibly high. Even during the first Gulf-war the number of casualties was elevated, and this was basically won in the air and the desert.
(i visited a bunker in Baghdad were 600 people were hiding, all of them died)

few demonstrators are what you call "normal" people are protesting war against iraq, and the vast majority of protestors use demonstrations like that to show support for the arabs, the PLO, etc. nothing to do with iraq really if you ask me

BS, most people were not arab or Muslim people but people who normally never demonstrate. Are the 85% of Europeansi n aLL European countries who oppose a war all of them "Arab-supporters"?
but of course it's right that the double standard of the us concerning israel (violating un-resolutions for decades) and iraq is so obvious that it makes even the less politically engaged people angry and aware of the us-hypocrisy.

besides, if it is like you said, that people are concerned that war against iraq will "destablize" the world, why not a protest against saddam hussein and his regime? no such mass demonstrations are taking place. saddam hussein is, after all, the key destablizing force in the region, a total nutcase, and right now, after 12 years of defying UN resolutions that he signed to end the gulf war, he is being given yet another opportunity to disarm peacefully by the inspectors of the united nations, not force. so, why protest against the americans, and especially against the israelis who has nothing to do with this?? the faith of the iraqi people ultimately rests with saddam hussein, not the americans

because iraq currently IS cooperating with the un-inspectors, hans blix yesterday confirmed so and said that the iraqi cooperation is improving and the iraqi attitude "positive". The UN-inspectors also confirmed that the anglo-american "prooves" are nothing but rubbish or outdated information.
People demonstrate against israel because israel can violate dozens of un-resolutions while iraq is threatened with war because it allegedly violates a few un-resolutions...

iraq already undermines its credibility, takeo. the fact that they are not being forthcoming about their chemical and biological agents program, the fact that they have missiles that exceed the permitted range set by the UN, the fact that saddam hussein is shipping illegal oil quotas to finance the development of weapons that he is prohibited to have. are you actually willing to take the word of saddam hussein and his diabolical regime that they have absolutely no WMDs, that they are fully complying with UN? if the iraqi regime was in full compliance with UN resolutions, we wouldn't be where we are today

iraq's credibility has vastly improved the last years, especially because people became aware of the us-hypocrisy and lies in the past years(such as using un-inspector Butler as a spy).
iraq's credibility also grew because the inspectors didn't find yet a single proove or evidence of the American and brittish claims.

the illegal shipping of oil is an entirely different matter not related to wMD. Every country in the position of iraq would try to make as much cash as possible, and illegal sales trough neighbouring countries (such as Syria and Turkey, who are complicit by the way) are part of the reason why the Iraqi economy didn't crumble fully even after 13 years of rigid economical embargo.

I don't take the word of saddam, that's exactly why the inspectors are in. But I certainly don't take the word of Bush and Blair either, noone does, especially not since so many lies have been discovered.

if he goes into exile, which will in all probability be an arab country, then that country has the responsibility to keep him on a short leash, especially if the arabs themselves arrange the exile

I'm not so sure, saddam going to Syria for example will be too explosive since he would be a threat to the Assad-regime because of his popularity. Probably he'll go to Russia or a less involved Arab or Muslim country.

[takeo]

in most cases, pre-emption is an effective policy. if israel would have never destroyed the osirak nuclear plant, iraq would have had nuclear weapons by the time of the gulf war. this would have changed the outcome of the war remarkably. your analogy of pre-emption in this case is wrong

Why? We can all see today which mess the israeli policy of pre-emption caused. the Israeli attack on iraq only improved the popularity and determination of the iraqi regime, and it could easily rebuild the same factory with the same scientists and the same foreign cooperation.
Would you agree with pre-emption if it was applied by Russia, China or France against a us-ally?

and blix said just that, that he is not getting the "fullest" co-operation from iraq, that there are still many lingering questions about iraq's disarmament program, especially from the time UN weapons inspectors were banned from iraq. and just because blix didn't find anything there, it doesn't mean there is nothing at these locations. there is no way to check every single square inch of every facility, and like iraqi scientists said, everything is being moved around constantly to avoid detection, and for sure there are new facilities that western intelligence are not aware of

the Iraqi have this week started to hand over the missing documents, and the inspectors have lots of different methods to discover hidden or mobile wMD. they can interview iraqi scientists, make unexpected visits everywhere in the country, can rely on high-tech and sattelites, they didn't find a single proove yet.
Perhaps there are still some remaining questions(there will always be in such a complicated matter), but certainly not enough to justify a bloody and deadly war that risks to divide the western world and start a new cold war... why not, in the meanwhile, turn the attention to other possible possessors of illegal wMD and demand the same level of cooperation as the iraqi? For example: Israel, North-Korea, pakistan, etc; THAT would be a wise decision to avoid proliferation of WMD.

this means very little. it is almost exactly the same thing in turkey. the party that won the recent elections are fiercely opposed a US-led war against iraq, let alone let the americans to use the bases in turkey to launch strikes against the iraqis. but today, it was announced that a multi-billion dollar deal with the americans was reached and it looks like the turkish government will, after all, allow the US to use the military bases there. the situation is slightly different in kuwait. the people there know that once saddam hussein will have a nuclear weapon, it will only be a matter of time before he threatens kuwait again. i will emphasize this again: kuwait has a huge oil reserves, which means billions of $$ of profit to saddam hussein. he believes kuwait belongs to iraq. do the math yourself. because of that, many kuwaitis, or at least many moderate ones, support removing saddam hussein's regime by force if necessary

in Turkey the elections and ruling party means nothing, as it isn't a democracy. 95% of the Turkish people oppose a Turkish participation in this war...as always the generals decide, not the people.
The kouweiti's have more reason to hate Saddam, still according to observers even the greater majority of kouweiti's oppose a new war, they do no longer fear saddam and consider a new war unnecessary and dangerous.

all this "technology" can be rendered useless. once he has a nuclear bomb, saddam hussein will start a campaign of aggression against other countries in the middle east; kuwait and israel for sure, perhaps saudi arabia or any moderate arab states who are ally of the americans. he is insane after all, it's not like he has to justify anything. a nuclear bomb will truly give him infinite power, and any country thats stands in his way will pay the price. the nuclear bomb doesn't necessarily have to be delivered by a missile to america or mainland europe

A nuclear bomb means nothing, a lot of "roughe states" possess them, Israel, pakistan, and possibly even Iran and North-Korea. those states know that using nukes will mean the end of their regime and possibly their country as well.
by the way even according to the Americans Iraq doesn't have nukes...

This is not guerilla warfare. This will be fought in the open, face to face. We wil not be hiding and striking from secret nests. The Iraqi's may be hiding, but it won't be to gain the advantage in the fight. It will be cowering in fear, or have we forgotten the "Hundred Hours War?"

YEP, but that was an entirely different war, fought and won in the desert and the airspace. the us didn't have to conquer any important city, at least not iraqi cities with a hostile population.
The Iraqi forces can and will hide in the cities, using snipers, mingle with the civilian population, while the regime has already handed out 100's of 1000's of weapons to ordinary civilians to fight American invaders. They also selected volunteers for suicide-missions and already gave them the exmplisves...

this war will be entirely different from the last Gulf-war, Americans will have to conquer every single building, which possibly means a lot of casualties even on the American side.