[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics. - Page 52

primitive · #**511** March 22nd, 2003, 12:32 AM

Aloofi:
No I don't like it.
I find your little picture highly offensive in a thread about life and death of real people.
Please remove it.

Edit: That goes for you too Solops

[ March 21, 2003, 22:33: Message edited by: primitive ]

jimbob · #**512** March 22nd, 2003, 01:30 AM

Primitive said:

Quote:

Thermo:
Correct me if I missunderstand you here.
The main evidence of Iraq beeing responsible for 9/11 is 2 persons with falsified papers from Kuwait ?

According to Time magazine, yes. They make the argument that the major ringleaders in the majority of recent American targetted terrorist attacks are 1) related (ie from a single family) and 2) are using fake Kuwait identities that were coincidentally created during the Kuwait occupation (ie passports issued while the Iraq regime was in control of the Kuwaiti burocracy)

(I didn't even bother looking for a quik'N E-Z link, but if you get Time, go and read). Now I'll admit that Time is unabashedly pro-American (rah rah rah) but it's not in the habit of publishing fanciful conjecture either (cf. Al' Jazeer and possibly CNN).

Thermodyne · #**513** March 22nd, 2003, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto:

quote:
Originally posted by Thermodyne:
The US is not overly picky about who we sell to, but we do not supply advanced weapons to despots.

I wonder who sold the Stinger Ground to Air missile system to the Taliban against the Soviets...

The Stingers are not all that advanced, and it should also be noted that without maintenance, they spoil in storage. This was built into them from the start. Also, the cold war was a different world; we armed anyone who would fight communism in those days. We even influenced the elections of our allies when it appeared that their governments were in danger of going socie/commie. There were direct interventions in Italy and France, and we outright fixed an election in Australia back in the sixties. Back then anything was game so long as the US and USSR were not face to face. We had a quiet shooting war in Central America from the sixties all the way into the eighties. We had combatants in Africa during the late sixties and first part of the seventies. And of course we were all over SEA for two decades. Back then we armed lots of people, but not with frontline aircraft, and not with advanced chemical plants and reactors.

The Stinger is a defensive weapon, and has limited offensive capabilities. And providing them was a magnitude of order less dangerous than supplying Saddam with F-1s. No one is saying that the US was not partially responsible for this mess. What we are saying is that the US did not do it for direct profit. Our interests were always strategic. As were the interests of the Soviets. What were the interests of France, beyond lining there pockets with Iraqi cash?

[ March 21, 2003, 12:10: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Thermodyne · #**514** March 22nd, 2003, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:

quote:
Originally posted by Thermodyne:
You seem to have skipped the Last part. America, England and Australia are putting an end to this jerk. What art the rest doing? Many are protecting their Iraqi cash cow.

*sigh* You seem to keep avoiding my point. So I'll put it in bold and won't mention anything else.
The USA had a hand in the making of Saddam, just like France (which you like to target) and other countries. If your going to rave about how the French gave him this, and the French gave him that then you have to acknowledge the US's part in making of the Frankenstein.

Askan

. No one is saying that the US was not partially responsible for this mess. What we are saying is that the US did not do it for direct profit. Our interests were always strategic. As were the interests of the Soviets. What were the interests of France, beyond lining there pockets with Iraqi cash? The US spent billions containing Soviet Communism; France made a billion arming the third world. And then had the audacity to try and protect one of the most evil men in the world. All for cash! America will have its way in Iraq, could be easy, could be hard, but we will have our way. I can only hope that we will freeze France out of the reconstruction that will follow.

Perrin · #**515** March 22nd, 2003, 02:58 AM

Not to mention the fact that the US is working on rectifying their mistakes of helping to create Iraq. We are going into Iraq to remove Saddam.

France was trying to hide their mistakes by blocking the military action.

Wardad · #**516** March 23rd, 2003, 05:25 PM

q: Have you heard the latest 5 day forecast for Baghdad?
+
+
+
+
A: Two Days.

Atrocities · #**517** March 23rd, 2003, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimbob:
Primitive said:

quote:
Thermo:
Correct me if I missunderstand you here.
The main evidence of Iraq beeing responsible for 9/11 is 2 persons with falsified papers from Kuwait ?

According to Time magazine, yes. They make the argument that the major ringleaders in the majority of recent American targetted terrorist attacks are 1) related (ie from a single family) and 2) are using fake Kuwait identities that were coincidentally created during the Kuwait occupation (ie passports issued while the Iraq regime was in control of the Kuwaiti burocracy)

(I didn't even bother looking for a quik'N E-Z link, but if you get Time, go and read). Now I'll admit that Time is unabashedly pro-American (rah rah rah) but it's not in the habit of publishing fanciful conjecture either (cf. Al' Jazeer and possibly CNN).

This was also covered in detail on MSNBC and FNC. This kinda sobers ones opinion on Iraq now doesn't it. To think, that 9-11 and the previous attempt in 93 are now semi-conclusively linked to Saddam and Iraq.

Just goes to show you, where there is a desire, there is always a way. Thank god the US intervened before Saddam got his grubby little hands on Nuclear weapons. Just think what he or his cronies would have done with one or more of those? [insert]shudder[/insert]

Thermodyne · #**518** March 23rd, 2003, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wardad:
q: Have you heard the latest 5 day forecast for Baghdad?
+
+
+
+
A: Two Days.

I heard that the forecast was for warm sunny weather with a 100% chance of bombs and missiles.

primitive · #**519** March 23rd, 2003, 08:00 PM

Jimbob, Atrocities, Thermo ++
Sorry, I do not doubt the fact that these two individuals got their passports during the brief regime of Iraq in Quwait.
I only find the strange if this is the only evidence of Iraq beeing behind 9-11. It's very little to base a war on, beeing this happened in one of the most corrupt corners of the world. It could be some big plan of Saddam, or it could just be the work of some low-level clerk lining his own pockets.

This is very circumstantial evidence at the most, and refering to it as genuine proof only strengthen the image of USA putting themself beyond (international) law.

When that is said; Now that the war is started, I whish the coalition forces the best of luck in the war. And I also whish the US the best of luck in winning the peace and rebuilding their reputation.

Solops:
Thank you.

rextorres · #**520** March 23rd, 2003, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thermodyne:

quote:
Originally posted by Wardad:
q: Have you heard the latest 5 day forecast for Baghdad?
+
+
+
+
A: Two Days.

I heard that the forecast was for warm sunny weather with a 100% chance of bombs and missiles.

You guys should be ashamed of yourselves people are dying (both american and iraqi). If your so hot for war what are you doing here!!?