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

[Thermodyne]

Leaks are beginning to show that the intercepts of 24 march (local) contained orders giving local commanders control of the “special” weapons. I think we could see limited use in the next 24 hours. I can only hope that the response will be so horrific that the Iraqi’s will hesitate to use them again. Published doctrine would call for a tactical device, but I doubt we would go that far. I would think that we would begin to use fuel air devices on the RG’s positions.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
Why do you insist that anyone that doesn't support this war is pro-Saddam?

I don't think anyone has insisted this in this thread but since you asked if you post things like "The more you try to convince me Hussein is a demon the more baseless your accusations sound." this sort of implies that you don't think Saddam is a bad guy. Or when you post things like "Any mass destruction Iraq has had was to defend themselves from those who whant to steal the oil that is rightfully theirs." you imply that those 5000 gassed Kurds were evil villains trying to steal Saddams oil.

[ March 25, 2003, 03:02: Message edited by: DavidG ]

[Krsqk]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Are there any stats for the number of deaths occuring in Iraq before, compared to now?

Best I remember was ~20000/month. Sorry I don't have a link; just going by memory right now.

[tesco samoa]

IT is an interesting tatic that the coliliton is using.

I see that they have linked up and blocked the south off....

Did anyone watch BBC on Sat night 1 am eastern standard time.... I was glued to the seat watching a 3 hour long fire fight ( they showed every minute of it.... )

I am also surprised that they have been using the Apahce's against fixed positions. Interesting. I feel that this is a doctrine flaw in a mobile weapon.

[phaet2112]

One question I had is how bad are WMD when countries regularly use napalm, depleted uranium that aerosolizes *still radioactive* uranium to get into the lungs of soldiers (just because it's "depleted" only means it isn't useful for nuclear reactors anymore...not that it's not incredibly hot...isnt this gulf war syndrome?), and the new bombs that spray the incindiary mist that ignites, and sucks the air out of people's lungs due to the pressure differential (causing suffocation) as the oxygen burns up in an instant. Is that so much better than mustard gas?
It is terrible that there are so many different ways to kill people.

[Askan Nightbringer]

The amount of spin being generated and then quoted is quite staggering at the moment. Its like everybody suddenly forgot what the first casualty of war is.

I remember in the first gulf war when the world was awed of the Patriot missiles, and the way they shot down Scuds. Several years later I saw a US miltary commander say the Patriots didn't account for a single Scud, that the whole thing was to give the impression that Israel was in no real danger so they would not worsen the conflict by entering it.

I also remember the Kosovo/Serbia conflict. An Australian aid worker had been captured by the Serbs and was accused of being a NATO spy. This was of course denied by the west, and Malcom Fraser (an ex Australian Prime Minister) travelled to Yugoslavia and negotiated the release. When the aid worker was safely back in Sydney, Fraser admitted that the worker had been caught with maps where he was marking the location of Serbian troops. Yet during the whole incident the media was making out it was Serbian propaganda.

Now as both sides seem to have access to some media the amount of utter sh!t spouting out from both sides is staggering. The pro-Iraqi claims are dismissed until hard evidence turns up, the pro-Coalition claims are set as fact until disproven. Then I can go to an Arab news site and the opposite is true.
Either all journalists are morons or they all slant their work based on their chosen team or that just repeat what "leaked" documents and "unidentified" military officals are saying.

I'm not going to believe anything for at least another five years, cause thats how long it'll take for any truth to come out.

Askan

[PsychoTechFreak]

iraq war checklist

[dogscoff]

I think there is a world of difference between restricting prisoners access to a lawyer and taking then into a room, shooting them in the head and then showing the pictures on national TV.

Well, for one thing, the only proven breach of the geneva convention so far by Iraq is the broadcasting of P.O.W. images. I'm sure other crimes will come to light, but my point is that the US is demanding that Iraq adhere to the Geneva Convention when the US does not do so itself. It's called hypocrisy, and the US is not doing itself any favours if it wants to be seen as the "good guys" in this conflict.

EDIT: The US still has not given any guarantee that they won't simply "try" their camp Xray prisoners in a kangaroo military court with no legal representation and no appeal, and then find them guilty and execute them. And that's just a drawn out, sanitised Version of taking them into a room and shooting them dead.

And before you say that's impossible, it's not. It's one of the options they are considering. The refusal so far to give them legal counsel certainly does not bode well for a fair trial in the future. And before you say it's no more than they deserve for organising 9/11, that's bull****. Human rights apply to all humans, and it would be wrong to punish anyone for 9/11 until they have been properly tried and found guilty.

But once again, George W proves that he is nothing more than a cheap bully who only cares about getting his own way.

As for my comments about the images of war: I wanted to point out that depicting graphic and realistic bloody death as entertainment loses some of its appeal when contrasted with the real thing.

[ March 25, 2003, 09:44: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Some1:
Another question. Does the US want a democracy in Iraq? Or just a regime that supports the US better then this one? Does anyone think that the US would allow a democratic regime that doesn't support the US and its politics?

Yes. As long as that opposition doesn't take the form of developing WMD and having ties to terrorist organisations. The US tolerates, has relations with, is even friends with many governments that oppose our policies. Why would a free democratic and peaceful Iraq be any different?

Geoschmo

[Aloofi]

[quote]Originally posted by dogscoff:

But once again, George W proves that he is nothing more than a cheap bully who only cares about getting his own way.

.

Yeah, I voted for Al Gore, like the mayority of american citizens, but this bastard stole his presidency with the help of his corporate buddies.

.