War in, on and over Iraq

[Smiles]

vrater good stuff

That is magic. That is just what California needed. I have to say it is about time we made some cash from Iraq. France and Russia have been selling them missiles for the past two years under the table (Big UN supporters but apparently the rules don't apply to them ether). It is nice to see all of our business dealings are out in the open. Look forward to some new cash flow.


Cheers,

Smiles

 

[vratar]

Dont forget all those missiles and chemical weapons the USofA supplied the Iraqis during the Iran/Iraq conflict in the 80's. The only difference between now and then, the USofA will be paid in full from future Iraqi oil revenues. Russia is stilled owed many billions per Oil infrastructure deals with previous Iraqi regime. I suppose the Yanks are true capitalists. Bomb the f**k out them, in the process kill thousands of innocent lives, then take their money to pay for the war. Sounds like your new cash flows resemble that illegal activity called "extortion". Btw, wasnt this war illegal to begin with.

I forgot to mention a couple of former politicians, well known Republicans are on the board of directors for Bechtel. I believe a former Secretary of defence and another former high ranking US politician. Wow you Yanks really do know how to raise cash flows in a economic crisis. Perhaps the rest of the world will learn from your wisdom.

 

[Reccos]

WTF Smiles!!!

Smiles:

Maybe your SFU education caused you to miss some recent US history. The US have financed more dictators including Iraq and Iran than any other nation on earth except maybe the former Soviet Union when it was strong. Not to mention, the US have had many top executive branch officials breaking US laws to help dictators and despots.

 

[vratar]

Smiles, FYI : The Bush Americans claim they are fighting a morally just war, it appears many of you pro war Yanks suffer from Alzheimer's. One should look back when it all began, In 1963 Saddam was supported and aided by the USofA in eradicating and killing thousands of Iraqi communists. One also needs to remember that Hussein gassed those Kurds with the blessing of the Turks, Iranians and the USofA conveniently looked the other way as they were in partnership with Hussein. The reality of this war is that the US needs a scapegoat to kick off the implementation of new world order supremacy. Paul Wolfowitz, US deputy secretary of defence tried to sell this doctrine to the older Bush. Then along came the willing ears of George W, who appears to suffer from megalomania. Perhaps from wathing too much WWF. The war is practically over and this monster Hussein hasnt used any WMD. Has Saddam had a sudden conversion to ethics and morality? Perhaps its because they dont have any WMD! Another point, when watching clips of Colin Powells elementary demonstration of Iraqs WMD program, I thought he was rehearsing for Saturday night live, what a joke. The only thing certain about this Bush govt is that they need to feed their ambitions of a new world order and to dictate to the rest of the world of just how high to jump when told.

 

[Fastshow]

bravo.......

Well said, Vratar, all of what you've written is undeniable. I fear you're wasting your time, however, if you're after a rebuttal. Saint's the only one who might even be inclined to have a pop and he's fallen off the face of the earth.

Otherwise known as Edinburgh.

Where's Bin Laden gone? Been awhile since we've heard anything about last year's cad of the century. Maybe he's with Waldo.

 

[Captain Shamrock]

I was worried for a little bit.....

US draws up plan to bomb North Korea's nuclear plant
Tue Apr 22, 2:56 AM ET Add World - AFP to My Yahoo!



SYDNEY (AFP) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) has produced detailed plans to bomb North Korea (news - web sites)'s nuclear plant at Yongbyon if the Stalinist state goes ahead with reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel rods, an Australian report said.


AFP Photo



Citing "well-informed sources close to US thinking", The Australian newspaper said the plan also included a US strike against North Korean heavy artillery in the hills above the border with South Korea (news - web sites).


The artillery directly threatens Seoul as well as US troops stationed south of the Demilitarised Zone.


The Pentagon hardliners said to be behind the plan reportedly believe the precision strikes envisaged in it would not lead to North Korea initiating a general war it would be certain to lose.


This is because Washington would inform Pyongyang that the bombing was not aimed at destroying the regime of Kim Jong-il, but merely at destroying its nuclear weapons capacity.


The Australian report coincides with reports from Washington of an alternative US plan which envisages the United States teaming up with China to press for the removal of North Korea's leadership.


The second plan, contained in a classified memo reportedly circulated by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, argues that Washington's goal should be the collapse of Kim Jong-il's regime.


President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s US Adminstration has repeatedly said it believed the standoff would be resolved through diplomacy.


The reports come as confusion prevails over the ambiguous statements issued by Pyongyang last week about whether it has begun reprocessing 8,000 spent fuel rods or merely completed preparations to do so.


Western analysts, including those in Washington and in South Korea believe North Korea's initial announcement was a mistranslation and doubt there had been any such reprocessing.


Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Tuesday that Canberra also believed Pyongyang's statement claiming it had begun reprocessing the fuel rods had been mistranslated.


Reprocessing the 8,000 fuel rods, which would yield enough plutonium for six nuclear warheads within six months, would be the most provocative step taken by North Korea since the nuclear crisis erupted six months ago.


Downer told ABC radio on Tuesday that the Pentagon undoubtedly had "contingency plans for all sorts of things they could do in North Korea, militarily.


"That's the military's job, to draw up contingency plans, but the American administration strategy, as the President explained to me three weeks ago, is to ensure that there is a successful diplomatic solution here," he added.


"We are just on the threshhold of entering into the first round of talks. I don't know how they will go, but in any case we are starting to make a little bit of progess on the diplomatic front and there isn't about to be a bombing campaign."


North Korea, the United States and China are set to sit down in Beijing this week for the first direct high-level talks since the nuclear standoff erupted in October. The talks will open Wednesday and are scheduled to run until Friday


Thank goodness for this news. I thought we might have gone a couple of weeks without the U.S. bombing someone. What would that be like? Well done, President Bush.

Captain

 

[the power]

Were this to happen, the casualties would literally be in the millions, including many of my friends. There is a population of 22 million people in greater Seoul; the North Koreans allegedly have the artillery on the other side of the DMZ to level this within an hour. The Americans would need an unthinkable amount of weapons to accomplish the complete destruction of those guns.

Not only would the Americans be sending countless Koreans to their deaths, but the 37000 American soldiers stationed there as well. As stupid and ****y as they have been, I have to agree with most of my Korean friends and say that both sides will eventually tone down the rhetoric and return to the status quo. The potential for losses on both sides, not even counting the damage to Japan or China, would be too much to swallow.

Here's hoping saner heads prevail.

 

[SC]

T-Power...

It means much more to you now than ever before hey...being closer than you were in the past

America, your BUSH stinks
Regsi, where's the middle finger button on this forum anyhow?

+SCwithworries

 

[Fastshow]

maniac in town.........

The Most Frightening Man on the Planet and his entourage of maniacal half-wits arrive in London today with their helicopters and Cadillac Sevilles. All at the British tax-payers expense.

The criticism from politicians across the party divide, peace groups and military experts signalled a rough start for a visit already marked by controversy.

The condemnation also covered the failure to discover Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the continued survival of another key foe, Osama bin Laden.

Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said: "The failure-to capture Saddam Hussein is but one of a number of serious problems facing George Bush and Tony Blair in Iraq."

He pointed out that in recent weeks the security situation in Iraq had worsened "dramatically", with a big increase in attacks on allied troops, and organisations such as the Red Cross compelled to scale down aid efforts.

"Capturing Saddam would be a very important development," Mr Kennedy said. "But the problems in Iraq go much further than that."

On the Labour side, former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle said the survival of the dictator was a "key issue for the Americans".

He went on: "They demonised him. They made him a target. It's bizarre they have not managed to locate him but it speaks volumes for the qualities of their intelligence."

Air Marshal Sir Timothy Garden, of the Institute of Strategic Studies, said it was "totally unacceptable" that Saddam was at large, adding: "It is down to incompetence."

Major Charles Heyman, senior defence analyst for Jane's Information Group, said: "There is a very simple reason why Saddam Hussein has not been found - the plan to hide him was drawn up over a number of years.

"We knew before the war that the Ba'ath Party was planning a counter-insurgency operation. The Iraqi foreign minister warned of a counter-attack that 'would make Vietnam look like a picnic'. What effect the failure to find Saddam has on our soldiers I can't say, but with every day that he is not found, the enemy gains strength."

Major-General Peter Martin, retired colonel of the Cheshire Regiment, said: "The coalition needs good intelligence, and to get good intelligence they need to have the goodwill of the people. The British Army is the world leader on matters of internal security, and I do wonder sometimes to what extent the Americans are looking to us for advice."

John Pike, a leading US independent defence analyst and director of military information website globalsecurity.org, said: "We haven't found Saddam Hussein for the same reason that we haven't found Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar which is, quite simply,that they have been effectively hidden." This man is quite clearly a fcuking genius from the Tom Larscheid school of excellence.

Clare Short, who quit the Cabinet in the wake of the war, calls on Mr Bush in an open message in The Guardian to "take a deep breath and admit your 'war on terror' isn't working".

Another former minister, Glenda Jackson, demanded: "Why is George Bush being given a triumphal ride down Whitehall when Saddam is still roaming free?"

The US is offering a £16million reward for information leading to the capture or death of Saddam.

The senior American figure in Iraq, Paul Bremer, yesterday dismissed him as a "voice in the wilderness" followed by only a small band of murderers. But he acknowledged: "We need to capture or kill him." Clever.

MP George Galloway, expelled from the Labour Party for his outspoken opposition to the war, said: "The failure to find Saddam Hussein underlines the futility of the American strategy of war. It makes them look incompetent as well as malevolent. But even if they get lucky, that won't solve their problem."

Ghada Razuki of the Stop the War Coalition said: "He [Bush] is adding insult to injury by coming to our country and he's going to find out that he's not welcome. This is the man in charge of the administration that's killed 8,000 Afghanis and 10,000 Iraqis."

 

[Reccos]

Very interesting to re-read the posts on this issue.

Where are those who clamoured for war now that the US is mired in an unwinnable battle with a phantom enemy led by a despot of near mythical proportions, who they can't find? US soldiers are dying daily at the hands of an enemy they can't see until it is too late. This war is not winnable so the question is, how many US troops have to give their lives for this stupid cause.

Isn't this George Bush's Vietnam? A battle that is not fought between two enemies with troops, ships, tanks and planes. The only differences I see between Vietnam and Iraq is that there is no jungle and the Iraqi leader is an asshole unlike Ho Chi Minh who led the north Vietnamese.

Dude, Smiles.... an update on how well this war is going?

Remember the old adage? Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it - or something like that.

 

[Dude]

For one, I don’t know why you would bunch me in with Smiles in asking for an update, if for only to try and re-kindle our differences in opinion. My views were as follows, and haven’t changed:

I’ve been firmly on the fence regarding this particular conflict for some time now. I’m 100% supportive of having Saddam Hussein removed from power, for obvious reasons. I also think the Yanks and Puppets (Brits & Aussies) arbitrarily deciding to swat a fly with a machine gun is asinine. I am supportive of a UN resolution, achieved through popular majority vote. If that is a series of deadlines before military action, it would still be better than this. I think negotiation / threats deserved a better shot, with all the UN on one page.

I believe the Saddam regime needs to be removed from power, but I have real problems with this war, for obvious reasons. This is my biggest beef too: the US propaganda machine would have everyone think this is a humanitarian effort first, and foremost. It just so happens that Iraq is in a position to control world-wide supply of the American's (and Canadian's) most precious commodity.

I didn't have a problem with Kosovo, but this is different. Does the end justify the means?

Funny Reccos, but every-time I read your posts on issues like this, it seems that you are decidedly anti-war, no matter what the issue. I may be wrong, and let me know if I am.
….I feel that the results we see today doesn’t justify the methods. I would have preferred a negotiated UN resolution.

The US now finds itself between a rock and a hard place…they stay, and will surely continue to lose lives to the invisible attackers. They cease occupation, and the region will surely be taken over once again by warlords. In my opinion, the Iraqi people will endure greater suffering under option #2.

Had the US worked with the UN, and the UN had resolved for war (read: occupation), how would the results have differed? It’s very difficult, if not impossible for us to get a feel for what is happening. What media can we believe? Anything out of the US or Aljezeera (sp?) needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

One columnist worth reading: Margaret Wenting of the Globe and Mail, reporting from Iraq. In one of her articles, she states that public-opinion polls show that about 80 per cent of Iraqis support the U.S. overthrow of Saddam and are profoundly relieved that he's gone. Can she be trusted to show the human sides of the war? I don’t know…all in the mind of the reader. Other polls have also shown that although the majority of Iraqis are relieved Saddam’s out of power, they’d also like the US to get out. We hear of stories how the economic climate has changed- for the better- for doctors, teachers, and government employees. However, the economy is in such shambles that laborers are now earning far less.

Beyond stating that I think it is best for the US and UN to get together on a plan to both end as much of the violence in Iraq as possible, while getting the government, economy, and social services back in order and under Iraqi power, I don’t have any ideas.

What about you, Reccos? The fact that you actually compared this to Vietnam shows you don’t have a lot of useful thoughts on the issue, only criticism. I’m sure any US troop who actually had to live through Vietnam would be hugely insulted by this. There are some similarities on paper, but that’s where it ends. The scale of the two events, as far as sending off men for slaughter and then the treatment those soldiers received upon returning “home” doesn’t come close. I don’t even want to get in to how silly that comparison is.

 

[Fastshow]

seriously......

I’m sure any US troop who actually had to live through Vietnam would be hugely insulted by this.

It might be preferable, even easier if you can find any, to ask the thousands of American draft-dodgers who came to Canada during this period of history. The comparison on how those yanks who did go to Vietnam were treated upon return is redundant, even moot; American spin-doctors didn't have the 11th of September 2001 to rally the populous herd around. Your Vietnam ex-servicemen would be better off being offended for having been subjected to Vietnam in the first place.

But look! We've come full circle. American foreign policy.

Why is criticism useless?

I'm off to compare this shiny new apple to an orange right after I ring Max Blink for advice on how to make the most out of living in London.

 

[Dude]

It might be preferable, even easier if you can find any, to ask the thousands of American draft-dodgers who came to Canada during this period of history.

So true.

And beyond that, it helps solidify my point: the troops of the time were sent off to slaughter, while the survivors came home only to be treated like shite and ridiculed by idealists and protesters.

I have no problem with protest, then or now. I have no problem with opinion. I do have a problem with taking it out on the troops, who in that case were sent to do a job, like it or not. Looking back on that time, it really is sickening how the hippies chose to treat troops who were the real pawns of that conflict.

No problem with criticism either. I just have a problem with the single minded bent you both are on, and the fact that you actually don't seem to take a realistic viewpoint on the current situation. In addition, that comparison is outrageous.

Reccos...sure you didn't "migrate" here from the US?

 

[the manager]

there is definately a danger that the US is realizing with their occupation in Iraq...moreso than the realization that ione has just 'stepped in it'...

 

[kurgan]

Choices?

Dude,

I do have a problem with taking it out on the troops, who in that case were sent to do a job, like it or not.

In 1969, you may have had a point. Now, however, there is no draft in place in the US and, instead, they have a choice in the matter. The choice to be in the service of the armed forces is just that, a choice.

 

[Dude]

It is a choice: to sign up. However, once you're in, you can't very well cherry pick your assignments. The troops send to Iraq have no choice in the matter, unless they want to leave the military.

In any event, in the quote you highlighted above, I was indeed referring to the troops of Vietnam, not Iraq.

 

[Jinky]

Originally posted by Reccos

Isn't this George Bush's Vietnam?

Bush already had his Vietnam.

He spent it defending Texas' skies from the Vietcong.

 

[Reccos]

Dude:

I was not trying to insult the troops who went to Vietnam nor would I insult those in Iraq today.

It is out of respect for those who fought for freedom and democracy in World War 1 and 2 and in the Korean War that I oppose the US war in Iraq. A war with a genuine cause is fine, but to simply pick this battle as the US did is dumb.

When American youth signed up for the military much like Canadian youth today, they sign up believing that their country wouldn't repeat anything so dumb as a Vietnam type war. By that I mean, a war where the mission and objective is ill-conceived and wrong, and where the enemy is not going to fight a traditional battle but attack in a guerilla manner killing your troops one or two at a time. I believed at the start of the Iraq campaign, as I do today, that the US had no right to unilaterally intervene to get a regime change in that country or anywhere they didn't like the leader.

Another objection I had to this war is how would the US exit and now it is clear, they can't! Some foresight would have gone a long way to avoiding this current situation.


Dude, one last point. It was not the idealists and protesters who turned their backs on the Vietnam vets it was the American people and society en masse! Each vet was treated as if he was the one massacring babies and innocent civilians. Jobs did not come easy to them and it was not the protesters who caused that to happen.

Ho Chi Minh said it best when he said he would win the war by winning the hearts and minds of the American people or something like that. What happened was that the news coverage on the 6 pm nightly newscasts caused the American public to shift their view of American always right, to a what the fcuk is going on attitude.

 

[Dude]

Dude, one last point. It was not the idealists and protesters who turned their backs on the Vietnam vets it was the American people and society en masse! Each vet was treated as if he was the one massacring babies and innocent civilians. Jobs did not come easy to them and it was not the protesters who caused that to happen.

Fair enough. I wasn't alive then, so I can only go by history, not experience.

I think you see my point, though. Also, I don't think that we'll see a "traditional battle" in any war ever again. Another thing Vietnam did for the world: introduce Guerilla Warfare.

 

[Jinky]

Originally posted by Dude
Another thing Vietnam did for the world: introduce Guerilla Warfare.

Dude,

please stop trying to give history lessons.

Guerilla tactics were around long, long before the Vietnam war.


BTW, It has been reported that Ba'ath party loyalists are paying $100 per bomb planted on Iraq's roads. With the massive unemployment caused by this war, there is no shortage of would-be Guerillas.