Article

2003-03-07 Iraq

Hussein, in Rallying His Military, Also Shows Iraqis a Defiant Face

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ISHMAIL 2003-03-07 10:58 am|| || Front Page|| [11137 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 MAIN REASON BEING......he thinks we live through our actors.........if he ever saw the heart land, he'd know he was in a world of shit.

Posted by Rocky 3/7/2003 2:43:43 AM|| 3/7/2003 2:43:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Rules of engagement of US Forces:

Anything that moves is Iraqi Republican Guards.

Anything that stands still is well-trained Iraqi Republican Guards.

Someone always knows where someone is, Saddam. I get the feeling the only thing left of you by the end of this month will be your moustache.

Posted by badanov 2003-03-07 01:43:00|| [www.rkka.org] 2003-03-07 01:43:00|| Front Page Top

#3 MAIN REASON BEING......he thinks we live through our actors.........if he ever saw the heart land, he'd know he was in a world of shit.

Posted by Rocky 2003-03-07 02:43:43|| 2003-03-07 02:43:43|| Front Page Top

#4 "This love has been going on for 35 years of my being in power,"

Let us aquaint you with the phrase "Term Limits"

Posted by john 2003-03-07 06:58:24|| 2003-03-07 06:58:24|| Front Page Top

#5 One wonders what the Republican Guard commanders make of such nonsense. There are probably a few dozen (many hundred) IRG captains who are looking for a chance to defect. No doubt it will be difficult to do.

Posted by mhw 2003-03-07 07:04:50|| 2003-03-07 07:04:50|| Front Page Top

#6 "Baghdad will never fall like it fell before."

"Yes, this will be a much more spectacular and improved fall--with a fresh lemon scent for added appeal!"

Posted by Dar Steckelberg 2003-03-07 08:11:55|| 2003-03-07 08:11:55|| Front Page Top

#7 nice, Dar ;-) but that lemony scent is chemical warfare...don't inhale too deeply

Posted by Frank G 2003-03-07 09:22:07|| 2003-03-07 09:22:07|| Front Page Top

#8 "We should not march into Baghdad. . . . To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero . . . assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."

Colin Powell (1992)

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-07 11:42:00|| 2003-03-07 11:42:00|| Front Page Top

#9 Very good anonymous. You've discovered how dramatically things can change over time.

The quote leads me to believe all the more that going to Baghdad is the right move. After all, if something changed Colin Powell's mind, then there must be something going on over there. Maybe even that the threat is real, hmm?

Posted by RW 2003-03-07 11:58:09|| 2003-03-07 11:58:09|| Front Page Top

#10 Now see what you made me do. You shoulda put a 'coffee warning' on that one, Dar.

Posted by Nero 2003-03-07 12:05:53|| 2003-03-07 12:05:53|| Front Page Top

#11 And exactly what has changed? The threat to America is hypothetical. The threat to Iraqi people is real. 300000 troops ready to invade, maybe with the use of "nonlethal" chemical weapons, maybe with "mininukes". Attacks imminent on electricity plants and waterworks mean that the sick in hospitals will die, hundred thousands will suffer from polluted water, countless children will die.
How big is the threat for children in New York that Saddam will attack them with missiles that do not reach 200 km, filled with weapons that no one can find, in a country that could be annihilated every second, where people barely survive.
Tell me, who is threatened right now? The baby in Baghdad or the baby in New York?

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-07 12:13:05|| 2003-03-07 12:13:05|| Front Page Top

#12 Anon, countless children have died already under Saddam. You want him to hang on in there in Iraq? Don't come out with sanctimonious s*** about caring for the Iraqis.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-03-07 12:52:40|| 2003-03-07 12:52:40|| Front Page Top

#13 No, i don't want him to hang around in there. Nobody does.
But you don't answer my question. As a matter of fact nobody does. How many babies will die in New York if the inspections continue? How many babies will die in Iraq if they don't?

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-07 13:04:32|| 2003-03-07 13:04:32|| Front Page Top

#14 Anon--

If you think the threat to us is hypothetical, then you're wasting your breath. You're not going to convince anyone here, and we're obviously not going to convince you any different if you aren't going to bother looking at the evidence of how misguided and twisted Saddam is.

I feel sorry for that baby in Baghdad--his short term chances don't look good. He has a good chance of being killed by Saddam on a whim now, and a good chance of being killed by us later when we invade and Saddam uses him as a shield for his military assets or unleashes his "non-existent" WMDs on us.

But, long term, his chances are looking better and better with every day we get closer to removing that thug from absolute power over that baby's life.

Short term, that baby in New York is probably pretty safe. But if we sit by and do nothing, both that baby in Baghdad and that baby in New York are in trouble in the long term.

War is an ugly and brutal thing, but there are worse things than war. Leaving Saddam Hussein unchecked is one of them.

Posted by Dar Steckelberg 2003-03-07 13:07:56|| 2003-03-07 13:07:56|| Front Page Top

#15 "The threat to America is hypothetical."
Amazingly, a hypothetical threat can be as dangerous as a real threat. Hypothetical means that a a threat has probability....is it 90% probable, 50%, or 1% probable? Before 9/11, use of airliners as flying missiles was also hypothetical. The role of the President, NSC, and other organizations is to evaluate threat probabilty and take on that basis. War in Iraq is entirely about the hypothetical threat Saddam's WMD poses to the United States.

As far as your "hypothetical" babys are concerned, I would suggest we are faced with a conundrum. If we act, the baby in Baghdad is at probable risk (This baby already faces higher risk under Saddam's regime). If we do not act, the level of probable risk (from future terrorist activity) rises on the baby in NY. From a hypothetical standpoint using your worst case standards, no senario would save both.

Posted by john 2003-03-07 13:22:48|| 2003-03-07 13:22:48|| Front Page Top

#16 Anon: the threat that Saddam will sell his weapons to anyone bent on destroying the "great satan" is where we are headed down the road if he is not taken out right now. You are correct that Iraq by itself will not launch a missile at New York any time soon because Saddam is smarter than that. Like someone here said, if Saddam did that, then by noon Iraq would be a crater on the planet. What has changed is that there are people willing to kill thousands of Americans through clandestine means, and then run back to their caves and proclaim "it wasn't us". What has changed is that rogue nations use other "organizations" to do their dirty work for them. Unfortunately to deal with such threats requires a different strategy and methods than what has been employed before. The soviet union understood the concept of mutually assured destruction, and that was enough to keep the peace. There are some Americans that do not wish to wait and find out if Saddam and his buddies understand this very same concept. And thank God for that.

One question for you: if America was attacked by a biological or nuclear weapon, would you come to its defense or say "they deserved it"? If the latter, then you should also understand the American position of going it alone if the UN isn't serious about Iraq. Long live President Bush. Long live Blair. Long live Howard.

Posted by RW 2003-03-07 13:23:39|| 2003-03-07 13:23:39|| Front Page Top

#17 Nobody said that we shouldn't do anything. We are doing something now. It may not be enough but there is progress. How much progress could be made in half a year? Without killing anyone?
Or will that baby in New York not be safe from Saddam in half a year?
A lot of things can happen in half a year. An Iraqi attack on the U.S. is not likely to be one of them.
I will not go into the "all for oil" argument. I just want to know: Is the threat real and imminent enough to go to war in a week?

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-07 13:24:23|| 2003-03-07 13:24:23|| Front Page Top

#18 An Iraqi attack on the U.S. is not likely to be one of them

You again demonstrate that you don't get it. Iraq will never attack the US directly. But Saddam will cooperate with other "organizations" who share the same sentiment of destroying the US.
If left alone, it would definately be six months before Saddam develops the method to bring these weapons to American soil, for use by the likes of OBL and his cronies.

Posted by RW 2003-03-07 13:49:24|| 2003-03-07 13:49:24|| Front Page Top

#19 Lets assume somebody breaks into a house, takes the family hostage. You know he has guns. Would you bomb the house killing all people inside to eliminate the potential threat this guy might pose to the neighbors? Or would Special Forces surround the house and talk, negotiating, trying to make him release hostages? Would they stop negotiating because the guy only releases one hostage at a time, not all immediately? Wouldn't police only storm the house when this guy is starting to kill his hostages? I said storm the house, not drop bombs on it.
Right now we are faced with millions of threats. How many Hobson's choices are we going to make?

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-07 13:49:51|| 2003-03-07 13:49:51|| Front Page Top

#20 Anon:

If you think the inspections are working and that we are actually making "progress", then no answer I give you will satisfy you and no answer you give me will satisfy me, because the crux of the argument is:

Are the inspections working?

I believe they are not, and while the threat may not be imminent to that baby in New York, it is real enough and imminent enough to the US as each day:

o brings Saddam closer to developing nukes
o allows Saddam to develop more chemical and biological weapons
o allows Saddam's troops to improve their defenses
o allows Saddam to torture and kill more of his own people and internal enemies
o costs us millions to supply our troops--whose presence is the only reason Saddam allowed inspectors back in after booting them out four years ago

There is no way we can know how imminent the threat is because Saddam has NEVER cooperated with the UN and let them know how far along his weapons program is. We know he had chemical weapons and used them willfully in the past, and we know he's had 12 years to continue developing them. We also know that our own country supplied him with biological and chemical supplies to develop still more WMDs back we naively considered him a friend back in the 80's.

If you think Saddam willfully destroyed all his weapons and that inspections are working, then there is no way you and I can agree on any solution to the Iraqi problem. I, for one, think that a man who rules a country through fear and terror would never give up his most fearsome and terrible weapons except through force, and we must apply that force now--and, unfortunately, that means we'll be finding out firsthand just what fearsome and terrible weapons he's been hiding.

Posted by Dar Steckelberg 2003-03-07 13:58:11|| 2003-03-07 13:58:11|| Front Page Top

#21 RW, do you have the shadow of anything like an evidence that Saddam WILL do that. Or just MIGHT. WHY should Saddam want to destroy the U.S.? He is a thug, not a jihadi. Destroying the U.S. means destroying the world economy means no more clients. And now inspectors are in the country, 300000 troops at his doors, the CIA in his country and you seriously want to make me believe that he would secretly dig out some anthrax or VX that OBL will scuttle off with on a donkey's back?
I think I read it here: If my granma had wheels she'd be a bus.
The most likely place terorists will get there weapons from is where they got them from in the first place: in the U.S. Avoids problems with customs.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-07 13:58:21|| 2003-03-07 13:58:21|| Front Page Top

#22 o brings Saddam closer to developing nukes
It took North Korea decades to develop 2 bombs and they have a reactor. The only Iraqi reactor was destroyed in 1981. The inspectors can't find anything that radiates (except all that depleted uranium the U.S. left there). Our satellites can't find anything. The CIA can't find anything. How REAL is that threat??
o allows Saddam to develop more chemical and biological weapons
Egypt, Pakistan and ex-Soviet states have these weapons, too (among others). Wouldn't it be so much easier for anyone to buy from there? Without 300000 guys watching? Or even better set up a lab in Texas and do it yourself?
o allows Saddam's troops to improve their defenses
dig some more trenches?
o allows Saddam to torture and kill more of his own people and internal enemies
That unfortunately is true. But certainly less people than an invasion would kill. But I admit that's the weakest point. Certainly doesn't help to state that the U.S. right now support dictators of other states which do the same.
o costs us millions to supply our troops--whose presence is the only reason Saddam allowed inspectors back in after booting them out four years ago
what are millions compared to billions that a war would cost? Give the inspectors 6 months and I'm sure the Europeans would share the bill that keeping the troops in place would cost. Because it's good that the troops are in place.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-07 14:15:20|| 2003-03-07 14:15:20|| Front Page Top

#23 I'm Anonymous who posted the previous statements. Just wanted to let you people know.

Posted by Danish Mermaid 2003-03-07 14:20:51|| 2003-03-07 14:20:51|| Front Page Top

#24 Anon: you're naive if you believe that Saddam would not help those that wish to destroy the US. It's a can't-lose proposition for him: use someone else to do your dirty work. Plus, if Saddam feels no ill will for the US, then why the attempt to assassinate Bush Sr.?

2nd anonymous: how do you know the CIA hasn't found anything?
If al-qaeda isn't interested in WMD, then what of all that evidence discovered in Afghanistan? What about that video of the tests they did on the dogs? What would prevent Saddam from sharing his know-how about such weapons? What about the fact that he actually used these weapons before? All the precedents are there... should you choose to ignore them.

Posted by RW 2003-03-07 14:32:21|| 2003-03-07 14:32:21|| Front Page Top

#25 Danish, what makes you think Iraq hasn't attacked the US already?

There's some very interesting circumstantial evidence out there regarding WTC 1 and Oklahoma City.

For example, how can a Kuwaiti man, who disappeared when Saddam attacked Kuwait (along w/his personnel file, one of thousands that also was taken back to Iraq) turn up in OK and physically change, not only face, but height? And why did Atta try and stay at the same motel as McVeigh/McNichols and John Does of ME ethnicity?

Questions, questions, but no answers.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-07 14:49:41|| 2003-03-07 14:49:41|| Front Page Top

#26 Well Bush called for Saddam's assasination: I think the two are quits (I'm not morally comparing the 2)
I can't read Saddam's mind like you obviously can. All I know is that you can't kill thousands or even hundred thousands of innocent people on the assumption that some thug might do something that might endanger your safety. If we let that logic prevail in this century we will face chaos and rule of force. International law will only apply for countries without WMD.
Thats pretty much a blank cheque for attacking any country.
Al Quaeda in Afghanistan is a different story. The Taliban are stone age religious fanatics. That Al Quaeda would seek WMD I can believe but you probably chose the only country they wouldn't get them from.

Posted by Danish Mermaid 2003-03-07 14:52:41|| 2003-03-07 14:52:41|| Front Page Top

#27 You confuse questions with evidence, Anon. You'll find the most stupid conspiracy theories about the WTC attack. And if staying in a hotel associates you with other guests staying there I better ask for a guest list checked by the FBI next time I check into the Hilton.
But frankly, given Patriot Act I, I would be rather scared to travel to the USA. I have been in Hamburg, the terrorists have been in Hamburg, too. I don't want to disappear in Guantanamo because the FBI connects dots.

Posted by Danish Mermaid 2003-03-07 15:01:07|| 2003-03-07 15:01:07|| Front Page Top

#28 Danish Mermaid:

Numbering the previous items consecutively for clarity:
1. Nukes
Nuclear weapons and technology proliferates, and every country does not need to reinvent the wheel, so it may not take decades for Iraq like it did for North Korea--especially if they get help in the form of smuggled-in material. Saddam has not cooperated, so we don't know what he has (or perhaps we do, but announcing it to the general public will compromise our sources--I'm not in position to know).

All Saddam needs is *one* nuclear weapon to hold the Middle East (again, 70% of the world's petroleum reserves are here) hostage.

2. Chem/bio weapons
Yes, other countries have them. However, they are not ruled by someone as demonstrably vicious and power mad as Saddam Hussein. The Kurds, Iranians, and Kuwaitis have witnessed this firsthand.

However, you miss the point that the UN--not the US, the UN--passed a unanimous resolution through the Security Council ordering Saddam to disarm and dismantle all WMDs. Regardless of who else has them, Saddam should not have ANY.

3. Saddam's defenses
Yes, dig trenches. And fill them with oil. And string barbed wire. And lay mines. And deploy his chemical and biological weapons. And build bunkers and pillboxes. And prepare all kinds of civilian areas--that we would not willingly bomb otherwise--to be fortresses. Each day allows Saddam to get closer to turning Baghdad into Stalingrad.

I don't know why you dismissed this point so lightly. For all of our aircraft, smart bombs, lasers spotters, satellites, and other advanced weaponry, occupying territory still requires a soldier with a rifle on the ground to kill the enemy and take that ground by force.

4. Torture and killing of civilians
Nothing new here that he hasn't been doing for ~35 years.

5. Deployment costs
Sustaining these troops is about more than just money. It's a hardship and strain on families, relationships, and careers for all of our servicemen and women. It's absurd that the US should shoulder this much of the burden indefinitely. It's also ridiculous to think that Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other countries want such a huge presence of foreign troops on their soil indefinitely.

Saddam has demonstrated what he thinks of the UN. He has demonstrated his lust for power. He has demonstrated his willingness to use whatever terrible weapon necessary to secure his goals. He has demonstrated how he feels Iraq exists only to serve him. He MUST be removed from power.

Unfortunately, that means war. So, as terrible as it is, let's get it done as quickly as possible now, before the cost is millions of lives like it was in World War II.

Posted by Dar Steckelberg 2003-03-07 15:10:22|| 2003-03-07 15:10:22|| Front Page Top

#29 Anonymous, Take a good long look at what's happening in North Korea to see what happens when you let a murderous dictator this dangerous go too long. You haven't learned the lesson of WWII-Stop the bastards early, while its still easy to stop them. (And I suppose you study/studied the night before big exams...)

By the way, you should know that there are no objective standards or methods for measuring qualities like "real" and "imminent" threats: Otherwise, we would have been prepared on 9/11, not caught completely off guard. You're counting on that, in order to be able to plausibly deny any such assertions. You know your demand for certitude is, in itself, unreasonable and unmeetable. Time to leave fantasyland and live in the REAL, UNCERTAIN, and UNPREDICTABLE world in which we both live.

Also, spare me the bullshit about your concern for Iraqui civilian lives: MORE people are alive today in Afghanistan because we took the Taliban out than if they had been left in charge to run things their way. Yeah, the US regrettably killed some civilians in the process: When you have to pump out the septic tank, you're bound to catch shit. However, the Taliban didn't have the cessation of religious executions written into their "little black book of things we'll get around to doing" when the US booted them out of power.

If you are concerned when the US accidently kills civilians and attempt to stop the US from doing anything, BUT you do not attempt to stop a dictator from deliberately killing EVEN MORE people, then your REAL concern isn't the killing of civilians, isn't it? When your focus and desire for action depends more on "who" (US vs. Saddam) than on "what" (dead civilians, in both cases), then your concern is based on a selectively applied morality, calculated to boost your ego, and not for actual, living and breathing human beings.

I say that the consistent and deliberate application of moral standards and principles in an unequal manner (no matter what thhose standards and principles are) is sufficient reason to disqualify the self-appointed "morality policeman".

The only thing we should take from the page of the 60's protesters is the use of the term "PIG!" when referring to THAT sort of "policeman".

Posted by Ptah 2003-03-07 15:15:39|| 2003-03-07 15:15:39|| Front Page Top

#30 Anon: One other point. Three times the experts have been wrong about how close Saddam was to developing a nuke. 1981, 1992, and 1995 when the son-in-law defected. In each case our estimates were wrong by years.

Posted by Sharon 2003-03-07 15:16:25|| 2003-03-07 15:16:25|| Front Page Top

#31 What a joke, Danish Mermaid. Why don't you go down to Brussels and have the EU start writing the US enormous checks to continue to pressure Saddam, the only way to--as de Villepin, Blix, etc have said--make him comply? $5 billion ought to cover it for a few weeks, don't you think? Why should the US taxpayer, as usual, be asked to bear the burden alone?

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-07 15:27:40|| 2003-03-07 15:27:40|| Front Page Top

#32 There are, I think, too many "anonymouses" on this thread. If you're going to participate, at least make up a nickname or some other handle. Sheesh!

Posted by 11A5S 2003-03-07 15:31:24|| 2003-03-07 15:31:24|| Front Page Top

#33 The only justification I need for this war is the liberation of the Iraqi people. Freedom is an incredible thing and I'm in awe of it every time I reflect on it.

Posted by Porps 2003-03-07 15:40:59|| 2003-03-07 15:40:59|| Front Page Top

#34 I'm responsible for most of the "Anonymous" (starting from the Powell quote).
I'd like to thank you that you take the trouble to get into a real discussion with me and not just shout me down.
A few answers:
Re: Nukes
Ok I don't want Saddam to have nukes. Yet it is quite interesting how Americans always quote the Iraqi defector when it suits their purpose. Yes, he revealed the WMD program but he also stated that the weapons were destroyed in 1991. Which part to believe?
You say with one nuke Saddam would hold the region hostage. Would he really? Using the bomb would be immediate suicide because the US could retaliate with 1000s. The Soviets had so many more yet they didn't march into Western Europe. They knew they wouldn't survive it.
Non proliferation has failed. In a decade or 2 at least 20 states, rogue or not, will have nukes. We will have to learn to live with them, just like we learned to live with the Soviet bombs. Attacking Iraq sends just this message to others: "Get a nuke and be safe from the U.S." I think even the US will be a bit overwhelmed attacking every country developing WMD.
Ptah, you are right: We live in a uncertain, unpredictable world. Thats exactly why pre-emptive wars won't work. They will just make the world even unsafer.
Re Chem/Bio: The anthrax attack in 1991 came from where?
Dar Steckelberg: I remember the horror stories circulating about Iraqi defense measures in Kuwait 1991. Saddam was way more stronger then. Yet that didn't stop the US invasion much? But now I hear the U.S. want to use chemical weapons (banned under the Geneva Convention, "lethal" or "non-lethal") to "disarm" Iraq from the same weapons? Don't you see some irony in that?
And if you justify an attack now because the poor troops would be so emotionally stressed out waiting a few months, are you serious? Ask the wives of the U.S. soldiers about what they prefer.

Posted by Danish Mermaid 2003-03-07 16:04:09|| 2003-03-07 16:04:09|| Front Page Top

#35 Well said Porps. Every dictator in the world should be put on notice.

And well said Ptah. When they're anti-american to begin with, nothing they say after can be objective.

"Using the bomb would be immediate suicide because the US could retaliate with 1000s"
The retaliation part is moot because by then it's already too late.
"We will have to learn to live with them, just like we learned to live with the Soviet bombs"
What kind of answer is that??? If your house is constantly being robbed you have to learn to live with it??? That's why the precedent has to be set, and all the world's dictators put on notice.
"Get a nuke and be safe from the U.S."
Wrong again. The message is "try getting a nuke and we'll pound your ass".
"But now I hear the U.S. want to use chemical weapons"
Then you need a hearing aid because you're hearing incorrectly. Do you work for Saddam's propaganda ministry??? Or are you unintentionally twisting the facts because your anti-american stance won't allow anything good to be said about the US?
"emotionally stressed out waiting a few months"
Ok you oughta stop listening to that anti-american crap, it's causing you to believe in nonsense. But then, it all makes sense right??

Posted by RW 2003-03-07 18:21:05|| 2003-03-07 18:21:05|| Front Page Top

#36 Anti-American... right. Every time Americans run out of arguments they slap others with being anti-american. Or pro-Saddam.
It's so easy.
You have been so brain washed in the U.S., continually scared with fake alerts that you don't see whats going on anymore.
A nuke is rather useless if you can't use it. It only serves as a deterrent. It may save a country from being invaded by a much more powerful country because the risk for that powerful country would be too high. The small country would never use that arm first because it would be annihilated 5 minutes later.
The only notice for dictators (or other states) will be. Get your nukes but make sure you'll get it before all eyes are on you.

I'll tell you a joke: Two men run away from a lion. Says one friend: "Why are you running so fast? The lion is faster than you anyway." Says his friend: "I'm not trying to run faster than the lion. I'm trying to run faster than you!"

Re chemical weapons, the Independent says this:

"The US is preparing to use the toxic riot-control agents CS gas and pepper spray in Iraq in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention, provoking the first split in the Anglo-US alliance. "Calmative" gases, similar to the one that killed 120 hostages in the Moscow theatre siege last year, could also be employed.
The convention bans the use of these toxic agents in battle, not least because they risk causing an escalation to full chemical warfare. This applies even though they can be used in civil disturbances at home: both CS gas and pepper spray are available for use by UK police forces. The US Marine Corps confirmed last week that both had already been shipped to the Gulf."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=383006

Moscow showed us recently how "non-lethal" these gasses are.

Posted by Danish Mermaid 2003-03-07 19:01:01|| 2003-03-07 19:01:01|| Front Page Top

#37 Well Danish if you want to get rid of the evil empire america,gather up your forces and have at us.we will see how long you last.
goodluck

Posted by djohn 2003-03-07 19:21:23|| 2003-03-07 19:21:23|| Front Page Top

#38 But you are anti-american so why be insulted with that remark? hypocrite

Posted by RW 2003-03-07 19:51:25|| 2003-03-07 19:51:25|| Front Page Top

#39 I am no more "anti-american" than the millions in your country who oppose the war.
I have a lot of respect and admiration for the true values America stands for. I see your constitution as one of the best texts ever written. I have known most Americans to be wonderful people. So don't call me anti-american.

The anti-americans are those who have betrayed the true values of your country. Those who think up laws in secrecy that will make your constitution look like a joke. Those who think the International Law applies to all nations except America.

If you look for anti-americans, look for them in Washington. Not in Copenhague.

Posted by Danish Mermaid 2003-03-07 20:08:11|| 2003-03-07 20:08:11|| Front Page Top

#40 Danish, you haven't even begun to address my argument. The best reports from the "peace" demonstrations informs me that if anyone called upon Saddam Hussein to stop killing his Civilians NOW, they got drowned out by the massive chorus of voices against the United States and Bush enforcing the letter and the spirit of, what, 17 UN Security Council resolutions? And this is NOT ANTI-AMERICANISM? Your so-called "care" for civilians embracing those NOT YET KILLED by Americans, and NOT embracing THOSE BEING KILLED RIGHT NOW BY SADDAM? Again, the focus seems to me to be on "Who", not "What". Call it a cultural difference between Americans and the Europeans with their former colonies "educated" by them. We insist on judging people by what they do, not by who they are. A cultural quirk you should be able to accept, inasmuchas you sophisticated Europeans easily tolerate the anti-feminist, nonassimilative, antisemitic quirks of Muslim immigrants. the phrase "Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel" comes strangely to mind...

By the way, if our "brainwashing" is so subtle that we don't notice it, then the techniques have to be so good enough that they could be USED ON YOU SO YOU WOULDN'T NOTICE IT EITHER, eh? Are you SURE you're ALSO not brainwashed by techniques too subtle for you to notice? How do you know? How would you prove it?

I don't know what you'd call shirking the responsibility of stopping the evil you see because of fears of evils that may happen as a possible result. You call it sophisticated and enlightened thinking.

We call it cowardice.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-07 20:17:09|| 2003-03-07 20:17:09|| Front Page Top

#41 So gather up your armies get down to iraq and lets get rid of hitler bush you are all crying about,if we are so wrong get your world army get down there so we can hash it out right now.

Posted by djohn 2003-03-07 20:19:30|| 2003-03-07 20:19:30|| Front Page Top

#42 Aaargh! Last post on 8:17:09 was mine. I posted from a different computer which didn't have the cookies set.

Posted by Ptah 2003-03-07 20:19:53|| 2003-03-07 20:19:53|| Front Page Top

#43 Danish, I am not an American! I don't live in the United States! I am Canadian, and my family background is Eastern European! Shocking isn't it?

Posted by RW 2003-03-07 20:23:47|| 2003-03-07 20:23:47|| Front Page Top

#44 I can hear your president on CNN saying: "Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people".
You didn't care when he was a threat to the Iranians. You delivered the arms.
You didn't care when he was a threat to the Kurds. You still delivered anthrax to Iraq after Halabja.

Oh yes now it's different. Yes, now America will topple the tyrants and let the light of democracy and liberty shine over the Middle East.

"Serious and systematic human rights abuses," "extrajudicial killings," "torture," "looting of private homes" and not respecting the freedoms of the press, speech, religion, assembly, movement, the people electing its government, etc.

Says the State Department. Are we talking about Iraq?
No, the country is Equatorial-Guinea, the dictator is called Teodoro Obiang. Nobody in the U.S. calls for a regime change there. No, the most brutal dictator of Africa (sorry Mr Kabila) was received with all honors in the White House last year.
Why? Ask the guys who sponsored the trip: The Mobil Oil Company

Posted by Danish Mermaid 2003-03-07 20:44:43|| 2003-03-07 20:44:43|| Front Page Top

#45 RW:
I am not so sure that the 1992 quote that you cite, does not represent Colin Powell's current views. Remember, he is part of the Bush/Norquist Rainbow Coalition. Anyone who believes that "islam is peace" is scary. America's greatness is a factor of its secularism. Early American Puritan forms were, like Islam, recipes for social idiocy.

Posted by Anonona 2003-03-07 21:02:43|| 2003-03-07 21:02:43|| Front Page Top

#46 Danish ,look we are going to war face it,so get your ass up get a rifle and go defend saddam.remember we are the new nazi's so come on lets go.

Posted by djohn 2003-03-07 21:05:52|| 2003-03-07 21:05:52|| Front Page Top

#47 No, we will go to Iraq when you are finished: to bury the dead and care for the survivors.

Posted by Danish Mermaid 2003-03-07 21:15:11|| 2003-03-07 21:15:11|| Front Page Top

#48 Well your not going to get rid of the evil empire that way,where your rebel spirit,rebel against the evil empire start that army come on.

Posted by djohn 2003-03-07 21:23:00|| 2003-03-07 21:23:00|| Front Page Top

#49 No, we will go to Iraq when you are finished: to bury the dead and care for the survivors.

Yep, after the grunt work has been done all the opportunists come slithering in looking to lap up the crumbs.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-03-07 21:26:40|| 2003-03-07 21:26:40|| Front Page Top

#50 Vile opportunists like the Danish Red Cross for example. But we will look after Americans, too.

Posted by Danish Mermaid 2003-03-07 21:38:08|| 2003-03-07 21:38:08|| Front Page Top

#51 Well how are you suppose to start a rebel cause hiding behind the Danish red cross,come on man,we are the evil empire.you got to destroy us or we will rule the world.

Posted by djohn 2003-03-07 21:55:49|| 2003-03-07 21:55:49|| Front Page Top

#52 Danish Mermaid, Looking through this thread four things rankled me more than all of the others. You spoke of the only radiation in Iraq being "except all that depleted uranium the U.S. left there". Do you know what depleted uranium really is? I look forward to your explanation, which I will be glad to critique if you make one. Second, you say that "Give the inspectors 6 months and I'm sure the Europeans would share the bill that keeping the troops in place would cost.". With all due respect, the concept of the Europeans PAYING the United States anything is laughable. Even if they promised to do so, the weaseling of France, Germany, and Belgium both in NATO and the UN has destroyed any credibility you might have had. Your [Old European governments] word is worthless. Third, you state in reference to rogue states getting nuclear weapons, " We will have to learn to live with them, just like we learned to live with the Soviet bombs.". The only reason that you were able to feel safe enough to "live with" Soviet nuclear weapons was the fact that the United States was willing to risk Soviet nuclear attack and to retaliate if you were attacked by any means. We were your shield and guardian. Tell pray, since Europe no longer wants our protection [and given Europe's reaction we may no longer be willing to give it], how do you plan to learn to live with nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists? After watching what France did to Turkey, do you trust their protection? [COFFEE WARNING] Does Europe plan to spend sufficiently to defend itself? Finally, you failed to respond to the risk of Saddam giving weapons to terrorist groups. Osama Bin Laden [may his head be collected by a Navy SEAL soon!] himself enjoined his followers and all Muslims to defend Saddam. Al Queda has trained in, and received succor from, Iraq. So if an Iraqi weapon turned up in Washington, DC and millions of Americans died; who do we retaliate against? And if we said it was Iraqi, would you Europeans accept that, or lobby to have us do nothing. I certainly do not expect you to come " to bury the dead and care for the survivors", because you will believe that we deserved it and more. We are the target, by past experience and by open declaration of our enemies. We have a different perspective than you do in Copenhagen. NATO is dead. We accept that. The UN is about to be as dead as the League of Nations, for the same reasons that killed the League. So be it.

We will defend ourselves as we must. "With the world if we can. With our few, loyal friends if necessary. ALONE AGAINST THE ENTIRE WORLD IF WE MUST.

Posted by Subotai 2003-03-07 21:59:51|| 2003-03-07 21:59:51|| Front Page Top

#53 Fred? Is that a "comments" record ?

Posted by Frank G 2003-03-07 22:34:01|| 2003-03-07 22:34:01|| Front Page Top

#54 I'm not hiding behind the Danish Red Cross, I'm working for it. And right now I'm busy preparing shelter and aid for the refugees we're expecting in Jordan.
During the Gulf War, American and British forces introduced armor-piercing ammunition made of depleted uranium, a radioactive and toxic waste. By war's end, more than 290,000 kilograms (640,000 pounds) of depleted uranium contaminated equipment and the soil on the battlefields of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and southern Iraq. It contaminated drinking water. Kidney damage and cancer rates of Iraqi children, especially in Basra, have exploded. The line between conventional and unconventional warfare is irreversibly blurred.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of dictators is not a nice thought indeed. But that has happened already. Nuclear arms in the hands of terrorists would be a nightmare. Maybe it has happened already. Maybe the "suitcase bombs" are already in place. Maybe some underpaid Russian nuclear scientist is up for sale. I don't know. All I know is that a war against a country that has none wont stop this. All you will do is to spike a race for these arms.
What will you do if Iran has a nuke next year? On which ground will you attack Iran? Self defense again?
And aren't Osama and his buddies roaming Pakistan?
The only thing to stop terrorists is intelligence, infiltration, control. And eradicating the fertile ground for terrorism. A US general in destroyed Baghdad will not help.

Posted by Danish Mermaid 2003-03-07 22:39:45|| 2003-03-07 22:39:45|| Front Page Top

#55 Sure we will take out iran,then syria the french the germans we are the evil empire you know,we are taking everything over.better hurry up with that rebellion

Posted by djohn 2003-03-07 22:53:58|| 2003-03-07 22:53:58|| Front Page Top

#56 Danish Mermaid:

Wow--go try to have fun for a few hours and everything goes mad!

One thing I'd like you to remember is that those depleted uranium rounds you mention would not be there if it had not been for Saddam's totally unprovoked invasion of Kuwait! Before you go blaming us for sowing radioactive waste around the Middle East, understand that we had reason to do so. It was not an exercise we performed because we had nothing better to do.

I think trying to have a civil debate with you in this forum is pointless. Let's just agree to disagree.

Hopefully, in another year, everything will be much more peaceful in the world, and we can look back on all this and laugh. In the meantime, best of luck to you in Jordan and try to stay safe.

Posted by Dar Steckelberg 2003-03-07 23:07:49|| 2003-03-07 23:07:49|| Front Page Top

#57 Danish Mermaid, I quote you, "depleted uranium, a radioactive and toxic waste.". Let us speak of uranium. All elements, including uranium are made up of isotopes [variations in the number of neutrons in the nucleus of the atom]. 99.27% of uranium is U-238. U-238 is flat, dead inert. It lays there and does nothing. The fraction of 1% remaining is U-235. THAT is the radioactive, unstable isotope of uranium. To make an enriched uranium nuclear device you have to build a fairly large industrial base capable of separating the two. Iraq is trying to do that, incidentally, but is concentrating on buying already concentrated U-235 from any number of rogue states. What you have once you have removed the U-235 from a quantity of uranium is PURE U-238. It is referred to as uranium that has been depleted of its fissionable material; i.e. Depleted Uranium. It is not radioactive. It is inert. Its advantage in weaponry is that it is denser than lead, iron, or other metals. Without going into a long treatise into the theory and practice of killing tanks, let us simply say that in some means of defeating armor plating, you apply kinetic energy to the target. Kinetic Energy = 1/2(Mass) x Velocity squared. If you increase the mass, you punch through thicker armor. Thus, depleted uranium penetrators. But the penetrator is NON-radioactive and inert. There IS a health problem, including with our troops. It is called Gulf War Syndrome. One of the leading theories is that it is caused by exposure to minute amounts of nerve agents. Of course that cannot be, because only Saddam has quantities of these, and he either really doesn't have them, or is too principled to use them according to the Europeans.

You also ask,"What will you do if Iran has a nuke next year?". Ma'am, you may not have noticed this, but we are functionally already in a World War. We face on one side the transnational forces of Wahabi Islam [Jihadistan is a good enough shorthand for them] and on the other the death throes of the last Communist states. This is a fight for survival. Europe may believe that claiming neutrality will protect then. Assuming that America and its allies win, they will be safe. I suspect that if we lose, your neutrality will avail you naught. But the Old Europe is not really neutral. It seems to have chosen sides. At least it gives every indication of doing so, and by doing so given up the supposed protections of neutrality.

To Frank and Fred: I apologise if the length of my posts has offended anyone. I know I am a wordy bugger.

Posted by Subotai 2003-03-07 23:32:04|| 2003-03-07 23:32:04|| Front Page Top

#58 Frank - I definitely think this set of comments has set some sort of record. I don't know if I'd call it comments or an argument, though...

Posted by Fred 2003-03-07 23:32:27|| 2003-03-07 23:32:27|| Front Page Top

#59 I am sorry too,it just when i saw the anti war protest all i saw was bush was hitler and we are the new nazi's i fiqured if we are the evil empire we should act like it :)

Posted by djohn 2003-03-07 23:38:23|| 2003-03-07 23:38:23|| Front Page Top

#60 The cost of keeping our boys over there is a lot higher than anyone has talked about. My understanding is that just having them in theatre runs on the order of several billion dollars a month in direct costs alone. To be able to keep them over the (hellish) summer would require bases that, even if the Kuwaitis were willing, would cost billions more.

A large portion of the $60Bn pricetag for war has already been paid just by deploying the troops. Another portion is going to be for bringing them home.

The incremental cost of active military operations is significantly less than the cost of keeping the troops there for another 6 months.

So, what would we actually GET for the extra $30Bn for sitting on our thumbs for 6 months? Do you have the slightest belief that Saddam would change his mind?

As far as I can see, another 6 months is just more time for things to go wrong. Saddam might get that U-235 he's been lookin' for. He might decide to give his buddies some Botulinum toxin. Dr. Taha might slip and annihilate the human race.

Me, I look at that last one and.. I can only hope that March 17th isn't too late.

You should probably hope so, too.

Posted by Dishman 2003-03-08 00:47:11|| 2003-03-08 00:47:11|| Front Page Top

#61 "depleted uranium, a radioactive and toxic waste."

*Throws up hands* That's it. Now I KNOW she's a twit.

Honey, when I was a physics major, we PLAYED with natural uranium rods in our student reactor. Not depleted uranium, since it wouldn't make the damn thing go. Toxic? Yeah, if ingested like lead. Radioactive? Just barely. It's an Alpha particle emitter, one of the forms of radiation easiest to shield from. Nobody's too sure about its half-life, because it is so damn long its the only fitting yardstick to use when measuring the age of the Universe!

Twit.

Posted by Ptah 2003-03-08 05:49:21|| 2003-03-08 05:49:21|| Front Page Top

10:43 glas iz sjene
08:22 raptor
07:19 raptor
06:44 raptor
05:49 Ptah
02:28 R. McLeod
00:47 Dishman
00:14 Steve White
23:38 djohn
23:32 Fred
23:32 Subotai
23:07 Dar Steckelberg
23:03 Alaska Paul
22:53 djohn
22:41 Fred
22:39 Danish Mermaid
22:37 Old Grouch
22:34 Frank G
22:33 Old Grouch
22:31 Frank G
22:29 Frank G
22:07 Danish Mermaid
21:59 Subotai
21:55 djohn