Do you support US-led war on Iraq?

[Uzbek-Citizen]

on which side is uzbekistan? with Anglo-amricans or with iraqies?

None. I do not support the war with Iraq, for many reasons.

[Kolobok]

I do support war on Saddam Hussain.
Hopefully,everything will be fine.

[SayFuLLoH]

Pomoemu i Sadam i Bush=eti vojdi svoih narodov,kak Gitlerri tolka v nashe vremya!

[Uzbek-Citizen]

well, UK has announces a further deployment of 26000 troops! they are about to join other 6000 Royal marines. hee, americans already have over 100000 troops in the Gulf. that's gona be a bloody war. is it really all about Weapons of Mass destruction?

[Desperado]

Americans have over 160000 troops in Gulf at the moment :!:

[Uzbek-Citizen]

well, 160000 u say? it suggests that conflict is immenent! hee, i cam imagine how much money they have spent to deploy such a huge contingent! Oil man, it is all oil... but isnt oil worth fighting for? Saddam can't use his oil reserves properly anyways, let the west have it...

I would say yes, it is mainly about oil! After you know that within 10 decades Earth's oil reserves will be totally consumed and Iraq is the second oil rich reservuor after S Arabia in the world, and South and South East Asia's overdependance on Gulf on oil (they are the main importers of Gulf oil, %95 of these countries oil come from Gulf) leave no doubt that is is a war for economic power!

Also there are some hidden ambitions and aims of the West!

[Desperado]

I would say yes, it is mainly about oil! After you know that within 10 decades Earth's oil reserves will be totally consumed and Iraq is the second oil rich reservuor after S Arabia in the world, and South and South East Asia's overdependance on Gulf on oil (they are the main importers of Gulf oil, %95 of these countries oil come from Gulf) leave no doubt that is is a war for economic power!

Also there are some hidden ambitions and aims of the West!

[Bob]

I believe that this war is mainly about oil. However if sadam hussien does get nuclear weapons it will allow him far to much bargaining power in the middle east and will create a new dangerous era of nuclear brinkmanship not only between iraq and the U.S. but also iraq and israel.

As well this who will stand up to a nuclear armed sadam if he tries to invade kuwait or iran again?

Finally although i do not believe he would attack america directly but who says he would not use terriorist group like al quead to do it for him by giving them the technology too create nuclear weapons or supplying them with plutonium?

However i do beleive it would be far better if the U.S. just used the CIA to assassinate him and his top officals or create a military coup.

[Bob]

I believe that this war is mainly about oil. However if sadam hussien does get nuclear weapons it will allow him far to much bargaining power in the middle east and will create a new dangerous era of nuclear brinkmanship not only between iraq and the U.S. but also iraq and israel.

As well this who will stand up to a nuclear armed sadam if he tries to invade kuwait or iran again?

Finally although i do not believe he would attack america directly but who says he would not use terriorist group like al quead to do it for him by giving them the technology too create nuclear weapons or supplying them with plutonium?

However i do beleive it would be far better if the U.S. just used the CIA to assassinate him and his top officals or create a military coup.

[MUHLIS]

SADDAM IS NOT IRAK!
BUSH PERSONAL WILLING TO TAKE A REVENGE FOR HIS FATHER IS NOT A PROBLEM OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT!

[*Wraith*]

Why would Sadaam risk losing power by hindering arms inspectors when he can let them do their thing and just start over later?

[Bob]

because it could set back his weapons programs decades (which he and his regime might not have). and with in that time nuclear weapons might be made obsolete by the star wars weapons system

Also in my oppinion I do not beleive iraq can avoid war now. Because if President Bush were to back down he would be seen as weak and unable to stick to his guns and would more then likly lose the 2004 presidential elections.

[*Wraith*]

the question seems to have now become when and not if.
what about why?
what about why not?
where is the cost to benefit analyses of a war with Iraq?

Benefit of a war with iraq.

-lower oil prices which will increase the recovery spead of the global economey

- it will stop the persecution of the kurdish minority

- it will stop the persecution of shiite muslims in the south

- higher quality of life for iraq citizens once the U.N. sections are lifted

- less crazy people with weapons of mass destruction

- a more stable middle east


draw backs

- bush will probably win th 2004 elections

- innocent casaulties

- american imperialism will have an other bastion in the middle east

[Bob]

Benefit of a war with iraq.

-lower oil prices which will increase the recovery spead of the global economey

- it will stop the persecution of the kurdish minority

- it will stop the persecution of shiite muslims in the south

- higher quality of life for iraq citizens once the U.N. sections are lifted

- less crazy people with weapons of mass destruction

- a more stable middle east


draw backs

- bush will probably win th 2004 elections

- innocent casaulties

- american imperialism will have an other bastion in the middle east


P.S. in any one has any others fell free to post them

[*Wraith*]

Looks nice, uh?

[joker]

[quote="Bob"]However if sadam hussien does get nuclear weapons it will allow him far to much bargaining power in the middle east and will create a new dangerous era of nuclear brinkmanship not only between iraq and the U.S. but also iraq and israel.
-----------------------------
what you say is as speculative as saying that 'if a grandma had a d..k she would be a grandpa'!

As well this who will stand up to a nuclear armed sadam if he tries to invade kuwait or iran again?
--------------------------------
whi will stand up to a bloody Sharon with nukes, or Musharraf with nukes, or Indian right-wing prime-minister from BJP etc :?: This does not justify a pre-emtive srike not so much against Sadam but innocent Iraqi children and women :!:


who says he would not use terriorist group like al quead to do it for him by giving them the technology too create nuclear weapons or supplying them with plutonium?
--------------------------------------
So far he didn't, but many other 'decent' leaders did like Russians and Americans- they have supplied most Middle East and Indian subcontinent with WMD!!! I am sure with a stricter embargo control, which is cheaper and less bloody, Sadam could not do that :!:


However i do beleive it would be far better if the U.S. just used the CIA to assassinate him and his top officals or create a military coup.
------------------
If they could do that, I would invite them to CA, so that treat our most respected leaders the same way and liberate us ;)

[joker]

Benefit of a war with iraq.

"-lower oil prices which will increase the recovery spead of the global economy"

less corruption in corporate America and less of waisting on military games would be better solution

"- it will stop the persecution of the kurdish minority "

not a guarantee, the West should have not closed their eyes long time ago when Sadam actually gazed them

"- it will stop the persecution of shiite muslims in the south "

how that? can they guarantee a happy life thereafter, would they prevent a civil war?


"- higher quality of life for iraq citizens once the U.N. sections are lifted "

well, lift the sanctions now then!! No need to bomb Iraqis so that sanctions are lifted - that's a contradiction!


"- less crazy people with weapons of mass destruction"

one less maybe, you will be surprised to know how many crazy people have those WMD - should we bomb their countries?!



" a more stable middle east "

A more stable Middle East will only come true after the solution of the Palestinian question, not the Iraqi one!!! Who said that Bush wants a stable Middle East - instabilities make dictators in Middle East be more welcoming towards Americans and their shiny troops!!

[wyxpat]

ffffuuuu munchayam IFLOS a bu siyosat???

I think, Earth should be split into 4 parts that should orbit sun as dar from eath other as possible. One part is ought to be Muslim world, the second part Russia, the Third USA + West Europe + Africa, and the fourth is the rest of the world. Then there would be peace in each part!

What do you say?

[wyxpat]

I think, Earth should be split into 4 parts that should orbit sun as dar from eath other as possible. One part is ought to be Muslim world, the second part Russia, the Third USA + West Europe + Africa, and the fourth is the rest of the world. Then there would be peace in each part!

What do you say?

keyin odamla quyoshni talashishni boshlaydi, uni ham bo'lib berasizmi?!

[Bob]

joker you raised some very good points.

and i will admit i do not have answers or counter points for all of them however i will try

firstly i admit that america was wrong not to help the kurds when sadam was carring out his campaigne of ethnic cleasing. i am also aware that the US would not care now if it were not for the oil or nuclear weapons. but that does not change the fact that he has tried and is continuing to try to comit geoncide on a group of poeple and he should be stopped and brought to justice!

i am also aware that there is a great deal of both religous and secular politics in iraq and many of these issues go back centurys however to simply eminate an ethnic or religous minorty thought the process of geoncide is and never will be the answer!

As for the sanctions it has been historically proven that if the un were to lift these sanctions the majorty of it would spent weapon

[Bob]

joker you raised some very good points.

and i will admit i do not have answers or counter points for all of them however i will try

firstly i admit that america was wrong not to help the kurds when sadam was carring out his campaigne of ethnic cleasing. i am also aware that the US would not care now if it were not for the oil or nuclear weapons. but that does not change the fact that he has tried and is continuing to try to comit geoncide on a group of poeple and he should be stopped and brought to justice!

i am also aware that there is a great deal of both religous and secular politics in iraq and many of these issues go back centuries however to simply eliminate an ethnic or religous minorty though the process of geoncide is and never will be the answer!

As for the sanctions it has been historically proven that if the UN were to lift these sanctions the majorty of the money would be spent weapons, building more palaces and the military, not every day iraq's;

also i would like to point out that sadam transports millions of dollars of ileagle oil everyday out of iraq yet the citizens of iraq see none of that money why!?

and i completely agree with you on your last point that there will never be a stable middle east as long as there is the queastion of palestinian but this question will never be resolvered unless the USA stops its unquestioning support for israel and start looking at the issue objectivly which will never happen in my oppinion, for many reasons;

and finaly as for attacking all countries with crazy dictators and WMDs only if they can not defend themselves ;)

P.S. sorry for the post above im connection cut and when i reconnected it had posted what i had written.

[Bob]

I just noticed that i failed to address the statement on your comment about corporate curruption the only true way stoping corporate curruption is legeslation. and to over regulate the private sector will added even more to the global slow down. It will also squash the spirt of entreprize which has flourished in the 90's and will send the economey back to the over regulated 60's and 70's and the good old days of staggflation. A developed economey must run on trust and those who violate this trust should be prosecuted. But in my oppinion over regulation can be even more dangerous then under regulation.

However I do agree that war games and most military exercises are a waist of money.

[*Wraith*]

Bседозволенные люди луди все кал, кроме пчёл!
да и пчёлы кал!

[Aleek_]

Гмм...Американцы собираются использовать самые новейшие достижение своих воорулении на войне с Ираком.
Они также собираются использовать некий оружие-микраволновла, корорая выводит из строя все електричество на своем пути.
Мощность излучатора будет такой мощной, что вся техника в радиусе попадание луча "етого испытательного оружие" будет уничтожена.
Мда, хороший очень пример испытать свою барахло на войне.
Не исключено, что и будет большое количество потерь среди мирного население. Не говоря уже об много-кратных излучениях, ожогах, и смерть!

Ето на данный момент может показатся фантастикой, но от Америки всего можно ожидать. Самому уже страшно становится...

источник: рамблер.ру (http://www.rambler.ru/db/news/msg.html?mid=3135867)

who thinks bob writes a lot of sh*t ?

[*Wraith*]

I think, Earth should be split into 4 parts that should orbit sun as dar from eath other as possible. One part is ought to be Muslim world, the second part Russia, the Third USA + West Europe + Africa, and the fourth is the rest of the world. Then there would be peace in each part!

What do you say?
do you know something, the world would be a better place!

[joker]

joker you raised some very good points.

"but that does not change the fact that he has tried and is continuing to try to comit geoncide on a group of poeple and he should be stopped and brought to justice!"
---------------------------------
Fair enough, bring to justice the bustard, try him in courts, if possible. But doing justice through commiting injustice (waging war on innocent civilians) is another injustice. So, substituting one injustice with another is equal to big fat zero :!:



"As for the sanctions it has been historically proven that if the un were to lift these sanctions the majorty of it would spent weapon"
---------------
That same history has evidenced the hunger and consequent death of millions of children and innocent people as a result of the sanctions. Sanctions have to be smartly imposed and implemented, that is different to virtual blockade of the country :!:


I am not trying to argue that Sadam deserves better treatment, what I am saying is that we should wake up and do away with illusions that the war on Iraq is justified and necessary - surely had there been any willingness from the US to really sort Saddam out in a more peaceful way, the whole idea of the war could become a geopolitical nonsense :!:

[Bob]

I am a afraid we will have to agree to disagree. I do not believe that iraq situation will be resolved with out the removal of sadam and i can not see any other way then a military action whether it be a coup or internationally backed invasion of iraq. i would like to leave you with two quotes.

"...war is never right but sometimes necessary" President Jimmy Carter

"there is a great difference between peace and the postponment of war to the advantage of another." Niccolo Machiavelli

I think, Earth should be split into 4 parts that should orbit sun as dar from eath other as possible. One part is ought to be Muslim world, the second part Russia, the Third USA + West Europe + Africa, and the fourth is the rest of the world. Then there would be peace in each part!


i think that that is a great idea plus dont forget the added advantage of each only having only 1/4 of earths gravity.

but u know it is going to be like school noone will want some countreis on there quarter

[joker]

I am a afraid we will have to agree to disagree. I do not believe that iraq situation will be resolved with out the removal of sadam and i can not see any other way then a military action whether it be a coup or internationally backed invasion of iraq. i would like to leave you with two quotes.

"...war is never right but sometimes necessary" President Jimmy Carter

"there is a great difference between peace and the postponment of war to the advantage of another." Niccolo Machiavelli

i don't mond agreeing to disagreeing:)
The quotes you cite are the quotes from a hard core political monsters who thought that one is justified to gain power at any cost - how can I pursuade people with that mindset, for them war is just another useful tool to gain benefits in the world politics :!:
I would look at your face impression when Bush (advised by Rumsfield) decided to invade Uzbekistan because Karimov was destabilising CA and paused great danger to free-loving countries:)

Benefit of a war with iraq.

-lower oil prices which will increase the recovery spead of the global economey

- it will stop the persecution of the kurdish minority

- it will stop the persecution of shiite muslims in the south

- higher quality of life for iraq citizens once the U.N. sections are lifted

- less crazy people with weapons of mass destruction

- a more stable middle east



fully agree with statements above.


draw backs

- innocent casaulties

- american imperialism will have an other bastion in the middle east


P.S. in any one has any others fell free to post them

maybe there will be some draw backs, but in the long run they will be nothing compared to innocent casualties caused or may potentially be caused by a criminal Saddam Husein (just remember 8-year Iran-Iraq war, wich costed hundred thousands of lives, aggression against sovereign state Kuwait, missile attacks on Israil, killing ethnic and religious minorities (poisoning kurds with chemicals), physical elimination of political rivals). Iraq with Saddam is real incornation of the evel. I guess only the real power in the world - US can fix the problem and it deserves support in this issue. Me, personally support US efforts to end up with danger stemmeing from Iraq - Saddam Husein.

[uz-citizen]

I would look at your face impression when Bush (advised by Rumsfield) decided to invade Uzbekistan because Karimov was destabilising CA and paused great danger to free-loving countries:)

do not dream too much joker,
stick to the issue, not to face impressions of users.

[wyxpat]

baribir hech narsa tushunmadim :(
sabablar: yo bu topic ishtorokchilari ingliz tilini voshe super biladi; yo men ingliz tilini bilmayman :( yoki politika o'zi shunaqa qiyin tushunish, ayniqsa ingliz tilida

[Bob]

I am afraid that we both have to firmly entrenched mindsets for either of us to change our oppinion.

but i would like to correct 2 facts

a) machiavelli might of being cruel and i do not quote him often but he was not a monster he was a man of his times.

b) and jimmy carter is a noble peace prize winner who has campiagned for human rights both before during and after his presidency.

and finally i would like to say that if the ruler of my country were guilty of the same crimes as sadam hussein i would welcome an internationally backed liberation. i would prefer to fight for freedom then live inconsistent fear. and i would like to leave you with none last quote

"all that it takes for evil to thrive is for good people to do nothing"

[Tank]

Personally I don’t support these bastards; moreover I hate Bush and his distraction. As about Tony Blair I think he is the US spy.

[Bob]

tank every one is entitled to their oppinion that is the greatness of democracy and what separates iraq from the US. however there is need to insult someone with a different oppinion.

[Desperado]

January 23, 2003

U.S. Welcomes Allies But Won't Be Waiting for Approval

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
The New York Times


WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 — Even if there is substantial allied resistance to
an invasion of Iraq, the United States will be prepared to attack with a
force of 150,000 by middle to late February, according to military experts
and American officials.

But allied criticism could make it more difficult to secure NATO's support
for any war in Iraq and complicate Washington's efforts to secure access to
some bases in the region. If the war goes ahead, allied reluctance may also
make it harder for the United States to share the military burden and
economic cost for occupying and rebuilding Iraq after Saddam Hussein is gone.

From the start, the force that the Pentagon has planned for an Iraq
invasion has been overwhelmingly made up of Americans. Contributions from
Britain and Australia, who are likely to join a military campaign to oust
Saddam Hussein even if the United Nations Security Council remains divided
over the issue, are small by comparison.

The United States is expected to deploy about five aircraft carriers, four
or more Army divisions, a Marine Expeditionary Force and the Air Force's
most modern fighters and bombers in a 150,000-person force that could
expand even further.

Britain is sending just over 30,000 troops, while Australia will deploy an
initial complement of special forces, a troop ship and F/A-18 aircraft.

Even if the United Nations Security Council were to formally endorse an
attack on Iraq, the United States military would be doing most of the
fighting. Conversely, even if the Security Council remains deadlocked over
the need for military action, there will almost certainly be some allies
fighting alongside American forces.

The dispute between the United States and its French and German allies over
the purpose of the United Nations weapons inspections and the threshold for
going to war with Iraq does nothing to alter the American-dominated nature
of an operation under the overall command of Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the head
of the United States Central Command.

"While the U.S. government would welcome the assistance of the United
Kingdom and other countries, at the end of the day this will be a U.S.-led
operation in which the bulk of the troops and the preponderance of combat
forces will be American," said Joseph P. Hoar, a retired four-star Marine
general and the former head of the Central Command.

Still, the Bush administration has sought to marshal as broad an allied
support network as possible for political as well as military reasons.

"We have, in my estimation and I think in General Franks's estimation, the
coalition support to do what we need to do," Gen. Richard B. Myers, the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said today. "Obviously the more of
that, the better, frankly, for all sorts of reasons."

A sharp split within NATO or among Security Council members could hamper
American political and military planning in several respects.

One potential problem concerns the indirect support the United States has
sought from NATO, measures that are largely intended to facilitate the
American buildup in the Persian Gulf by relieving United States forces of
other duties.

The United States, for example, has proposed that NATO ships patrol the
eastern Mediterranean Sea and that NATO send Awacs warning and command
planes to Turkey. NATO nations have not yet asked the alliance's military
authorities to prepare contingency plans for such steps, diplomats said.
Some allies do not want NATO's military planning to begin before the report
next week by a chief United Nations weapons inspector, Hans Blix, on
inspections of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and before further
deliberations in the Council.

Another issue concerns the United States' access to ports, airfields and
air space in the Middle East. While the United States is not asking Arab
states to send forces to fight alongside United States troops, the American
war plan depends on cooperation by Kuwait, which would be the launching pad
for the main ground offensive, and Qatar, where the Central Command's
forward headquarters will be located. The United States is also counting on
access to airfields in other Persian Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia.

If force must be used, those nations believe it should be done under the
terms of a second Security Council resolution on Iraq, one that would
explicitly authorize an attack. That way their support for a potential
United States attack could be portrayed as a way of enforcing the will of
the Security Council and not as a means of helping the Bush administration
redraw the geopolitical map of the Middle East.

"Kuwait, like the rest of the international community, would prefer to have
a second resolution that allows the use of force against Iraq," said
Kuwait's ambassador to Washington, Salem Abdullah al-Jaber al-Sabah. "As to
how Kuwait would behave without a second resolution, there is no reason to
jump the gun at this point in time. It is a wait-and-see situation."

With American forces pouring into Kuwait and the Kuwaitis still angry over
the Iraq's invasion of their country in 1990, it seems clear that Kuwait,
like most gulf states, would back an American attack on Iraq even without
an explicit United Nations endorsement.

But the open disagreement between the United States and its allies may
aggravate Washington's dealings with Turkey, whose territory the United
States wants to use to open a northern front against Iraq. While Turkish
officials have said that a second Security Council resolution is needed,
American officials are calculating that Ankara will drop that demand. The
dispute among NATO allies makes that politically more difficult for
Turkey's new government.

Another reason why broad allied support is desirable to the United States
concerns Washington's plan for occupying and rebuilding Iraq in the event
of a war. While the United States is prepared to carry out the main combat
role in any war with Iraq, it would like a broad range of nations to help
maintain order in a post-war Iraq and share the burden of rebuilding the
nation after Saddam Hussein's government is ousted.

That would free up the United States military to attend to other missions,
including the campaign against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and it
would reduce the cost of the war and the postwar occupation to the United
States. But enlisting broad international support could be more difficult
if the United States is seen as charting too unilateral a course.

"If the United States needs to keep 100,000 troops in Iraq for three years,
that will put a real burden on the U.S. military," said Michael O'Hanlon, a
military expert at the Brookings Institution. "We really need the allies
for that. We have got to have most of them buying into the initial concept
in order to help us with the stabilization afterward."

Those complications, however, are far less worrisome to the Bush
administration than failing to fulfill its promises to disarm Iraq, by
force if necessary, and to do so in a short time frame. If war comes, the
Pentagon's timetable calls for it to take place during the winter months,
before soaring desert temperatures make it difficult for troops to wear the
cumbersome suits that protect them against chemical and germ weapons.

There is no simple answer as to when a war might begin. The United States
military could advance its attack preparations and begin an air campaign
and even a ground attack while forces are still flowing into the region.
That scenario is known as a "rolling start." Referring to that possibility,
General Myers said today: "We're ready now. The Iraqi regime should have no
doubt."

Alternatively and far more likely, the United States will wait until its
main force is deployed. That would enable the American forces not only to
advance on Baghdad but also to fan out through Iraq to locate suspected
caches of poison gas and germ weapons and ensure that Iraq is not able to
fire Scud missiles at Israel from the western desert. It would also enable
Washington to protect Iraq's oil fields and put a force in northern Iraq
that could prevent any potential conflicts between the Turks and the Kurds.

Barry R. McCaffrey, the retired four-star Army general who commanded the
24th Mechanized Division during the Persian Gulf war in 1991, said he
thought the American military would be prepared to carry out such a
ambitious attack by late February or early March. United States combat
power in the region, he said, is "building rapidly."

[Uzbek-Citizen]

by the way, v kakom university in birmingham?? i am in birmingham too.


well, Iraq u say... the US and UK will have to disarm him anyways, now or later,,, better ASAP. Everyone will benefit from it - both Iraqi people and the west! Russia, france and germany they just talk too much! when it comes to voting at Security Council, i am sure all 5 permanent members of Sec Council will vote in favour of military action. (including China). And germany will be isolated,,,

[Uzbek-Citizen]

Personally I don’t support these bastards; moreover I hate Bush and his distraction. As about Tony Blair I think he is the US spy.



well, if u dont support the US or UK, then u support Saddam? right? u must support someone,,, between these guys, i prefer Blair and Bush... at least they have no intention to use their waeapons of mass destruction.

[Uzbek-Citizen]

:)

[Bob]

One must remember somthing about the united nations it is not nor does it admit to be the jundge of what is morally right. It is above all a political instuition and nations such as france, russia or china that say they will not go to war with out UN approval know that they are the 3 memebers of the permenate council that do not support it.

and each of these have politcal reasons not to support a war on iraq. some people have beging saying that this is a war about oil but the claim works the opporsite way too, this peace is about oil;

First lets look at france -

france is iraqs No. 1 importer. importing 22.5% of iraqs annual leagal imports and is iraqs 3rd largest exporter of crude oil recieving 9.6% of iraqs annual leagel oil exports,

now lets look at russia

russia only recently sighed a large oil contrct with iraq (N.B. russia is going though one of its worst oil shortages since the late 90's) and it is also tied with china for 3rd largest exporter to iraq at 5.8%

now for china

as well as being iraqs 3rd largest importer it has always been sceptical about the US ambitions in the middle east and still has a long standing grudge with the US for its backing of the chinese nationalist goverment of taiwan.

and finally germany

now for germany although not part of the permenate members of the UNSC it has being the most vocal western critic of the US plans for iraq. Gerhard Schröder was on the verge of losing the last german election to the christian democrats (the major german right wing party) who backed the war in iraq. many of Gerhard Schröder's traditional supportes the left had been moving to minor left wing parties because they saw Gerhard Schröder as being to right wing. so Gerhard Schröder beliveing he would lose the election made an extreme decission to not participate in a US led war in iraq no matter what the weapons inspectors found or how the UNSC voted. this allowed him to rally his traditional left wing base as well as some consevertives that were opposed to war. and now upon winning the election by a tiny majiorty he is tied to his contract with the german poeple.

finally a quote

"just because it is popular does not make it right"
[/code]

[*Wraith*]

Британия, уже перебросила туда 30 тыс. своих солдат

[Bob]

P.S. that is Gerhard Schroder, the o with 2 dots above it did not work correctly

[Rano in USA]

I personally think Bush is worlds biggest anti-semitist, when ever he wants to make a public address, he always picks Middle East. First he said that Yassir Arafat should resign, then that Sadam Hussein should get off the throne. Don't take it wrong, but it ticks me off, as a Muslim to hear negative talk about muslim nations. Who he thinks he is to tell others what to do. If someone won't stop him, this is going to turn out into a World War III. Even in America, over half of the population disagrees with him, and many more thinks he is an idiot. :evil: Ohh, all this politics talk just drives me crazy.... :x

[Bob]

i am 100% against bush on the subject of israel.

however i dont agree with you on iraq. iraq is a military dictator ship that just happens to have a muslim majorty not the other way around.

[BlacklabeL]

Ok, but still I'd say let Iraqies figure what kind of government they want and if they want ot not Hussein to rule them. Russians were able to overthrow their monarchist ruller, so can people of Iraq.

i am 100% against bush on the subject of israel.

however i dont agree with you on iraq. iraq is a military dictator ship that just happens to have a muslim majorty not the other way around.

Today Bush invades Iraq, with an excuse of Iraqi dictatorship. Tommorow, Bush wll invade the whole of Africa(to get his hands on natural minerals eg diamonds) with the same excuse. NO COUNTRY HAS THE RIGHTS TO INTERCEPT THE POLITICS OF OTHER REGIONS!

[BlacklabeL]

[quote="Bob"] NO COUNTRY HAS THE RIGHTS TO INTERCEPT THE POLITICS OF OTHER REGIONS!

I agree with you. I like your resoning very much. Where are you anyways?

Rano USA
В шестьнадсать лет уже начинаем шалить, нехорошо! ;) а так могу подкинуть свой имайл.

[Kolobok]

:P :P Guest,welcome to 21 century.
War on Iraq will be short one & I'm sure US & UK have the capabilities of distroying Iraq in short period of time.But what will be the consiquences of this war? Still Bloody war.Who is gonna be new president of Iraq?Will US deside or Iraqie people will?
Have a luck.

Look what happens when an American President gets elected in a year with a "0"at the end. Also notice it goes in increments of 20 years.
1840: William Henry Harrison (died in office)
1860: Abraham Lincoln (assassinated)
1880: James A. Garfield (assassinated)
1900: William McKinley (assassinated)
1920: Warren G. Harding (died in office)
1940: Franklin D. Roosevelt (dies in office)
1960: John F. Kennedy (assassinated)
1980: Ronald Reagan (survived assassination attempt)
2000: George W. Bush ????????????



The pattern seems so strong.

[*Wraith*]

Look what happens when an American President gets elected in a year with a "0"at the end. Also notice it goes in increments of 20 years.
1840: William Henry Harrison (died in office)
1860: Abraham Lincoln (assassinated)
1880: James A. Garfield (assassinated)
1900: William McKinley (assassinated)
1920: Warren G. Harding (died in office)
1940: Franklin D. Roosevelt (dies in office)
1960: John F. Kennedy (assassinated)
1980: Ronald Reagan (survived assassination attempt)
2000: George W. Bush ????????????



The pattern seems so strong.


так че ты хочешь?

[Bob]

Kolobok is right this war in my oppinion will be even shorter then the original gulf war.

and the real question of fairness and justice do not lie in the war but the aftermarth of it. poeple should not be protesting against war which is completely futile, they should be protesting about what will happen when the allies win and the rights of self determination of the iraqi people.

as to the comment about the russian revolution, we are no longer in the time of the rifle and traditional warfare. i imagen if any majior protests or popular revolt happened like it did at the end of the gulf war it would be put down by whole sale massacar. peasants might of being able to take on poorly equiped soldiers who were hungary and had little sympothy for the russian monarchy. but they can not take on heilcopter gunships and the republican gaurd who i would like to point out have a large stake in the survival of sadam (if saddam is ousted then they will face war crime charges!!!). so i beleuive that your analogy is flawed.

NO COUNTRY HAS THE RIGHTS TO INTERCEPT THE POLITICS OF OTHER REGIONS!

you seem to be ignoring 3000 years of human history. from the times of city states people have ping interfering in others politics. look at all the empires in history the roman empire, the persian empire, the byzantines,
the chinese dyasties, the british empire have all interferred in the politics of other independent people. so it may not be right in your oppinion but ars long as the world is divided by nationalism stronger nations will interferr in the affairs of weaker ones its human nature.

[Siege]

Американцев беспокоит только нефть, а не права человека в Ираке.
И это плохо.

Пусть вторгаются - Узбекистан только выиграет, хотя и косвенно - через снижение цен на нефть.

Вчера читал, что американцы заставят платить за войну иракцев - собираються сразу же взять под контроль нефть и продавая, покрывать свои расходы понесенные в связи со вторжением. :x

[joker]

i am 100% against bush on the subject of israel.

however i dont agree with you on iraq. iraq is a military dictator ship that just happens to have a muslim majorty not the other way around.

a small note: many other countries in Middle East and Asia are dictatorial, in fact most of them are giving lip service to USA - they can do so regardless of popular hatred towards USA because they are dictatorial and US allies...

[Desperado]

The war with Iraq seems inevitable.
I am personally against US and UK. Concluding from what Bush Dubya has said 'you are either with us or against us' I support Saddam. Why?
Because Saddam is not like other rulers of the Middle East, e.i. he is not the man of America, he doesnt serve his interests. He is the only real man with balls who stand against Imperialists and being able to defence his people from falling under the feet of Uncle Sam.
I do not like US, because for the students of foreign politics of US it is clear that America is the Dragon of the Planet who sacrifices everything and everyone on his own interests.
I turn to supporters of USA: wake up before it is not too late.
The instability in Iraq will not serve the interests of anyone but, strengthen the positions of the US.
I bet you are not that fool to think that toppling Saddam will be that easy. I hope you can see how bloody it may blow up. We all have to care about the civil, children, women. How can we let them die because of some devils' economic interests?
Now for a few years Iraqi people start to live in peace and more stable life, all after wars, and heavy burdens of economic sanctions. Why USA just do not leave them alone??
Is Iraq only country with the weapons of massa destruction( prove first if he has!)? It is even unclear Iraq owns such weapons, where so many countries has access to Nuclear weapons including N Korea (N. Korea is preparing to Nuclear armament these days).
Look around guys, so many people are protesting against war in Europe and America.
Sorry young uzbeks, but you could not impress me much with your analytical thinking over political situations!
God save innocent people!

[joker]

I would look at your face impression when Bush (advised by Rumsfield) decided to invade Uzbekistan because Karimov was destabilising CA and paused great danger to free-loving countries:)

do not dream too much joker,
stick to the issue, not to face impressions of users.

That is not dreaming - it's bringing analogy to illustrate the point! It's like when you can feel the pain of others you will less likely to cause the pain.

[joker]

I am afraid that we both have to firmly entrenched mindsets for either of us to change our oppinion.
-----------------------------------
agree:)


a) machiavelli might of being cruel and i do not quote him often but he was not a monster he was a man of his times.
---------------------------------------------------
Then, so were Chengiz Khan, Crusaders, Hitler, Ariel Sharon, Saddam etc- they were/are all people of their time! Can you try to justify them by the same argument?!
If you look from today's mindset ( in fact you do) then Machiavelli and his thought were cruel and monstreous!


b) and jimmy carter is a noble peace prize winner who has campiagned for human rights both before during and after his presidency.
-------------------------
Jimmy got a Noble last year because he was recorded to make anti-Bush admin remarks and comments, and those were in fine tune with the Swedish Noble awarders - it was in the news, i am not making it up:) I am saying he is a realist-biased politician.


and finally i would like to say that if the ruler of my country were guilty of the same crimes as sadam hussein i would welcome an internationally backed liberation. i would prefer to fight for freedom then live inconsistent fear. and i would like to leave you with none last quote
-----------------------
Bravo, i admire your courage! Then, you have all the reasons to fight and liberate Uzb from Karimov - how many more thousands of innocent Muslim and oppositionist your country-fellows need to go to Uzb jails before brave sons of Uzb, like yourself, start the noble cause of liberation?!

[Uzbek-Citizen2]

Is Iraq only country with the weapons of massa destruction( prove first if he has!)? It is even unclear Iraq owns such weapons, where so many countries has access to Nuclear weapons including N Korea (N. Korea is preparing to Nuclear armament these days).
Look around guys, so many people are protesting against war in Europe and America.
Sorry young uzbeks, but you could not impress me much with your analytical thinking over political situations!
God save innocent people![/quote]




well, u are quite right! iraq is not the only country with weapons of mass destruction. there are many others like UK, US, France, Russia and others.

BUT i hope u have already noticed that all other countries with such weapons are very stable - both politically and economically! the world can rest in peace. While Iraq is extremelly volitale country with horrible regime and the crazy leader! they should not be allowed to posses such weapons! moreover, saddam has intention to use them against his enemies! he even used them against his own people and Iran! after all these acts of terror how can u expect the West to leave Iraqi regime alone?! Noways, man! i do support the war! and it has nothing to do with muslims, as some people in UK say!

Well, north Korea u say. yeap, they too have weapons of mass destruction. but it does not mean that the US will go silent. they just finish off iraq and deal with N. Korea later... i am sure of it! probably not in such an aggresive way, but still they gona do something about it!

World super powers should not allow any developing country to produce any weapons of mass destruction! for sake of peace at least.... :)

[Counter-Strike]

I think Sadam Huseyin is acting fool by gambiling with US.
He is just playing with fire and will get his ass burned sooner or later!
US is accumulating about more than 500000 troops around Iraq against maybe 50000 Iraqy troops with some weapon.
He even did't get any back up or help from his Arab muslim world.
And soon he will join Yugoslavian President Meloshivich in jail, if does't gets killed! :D
Anybody who went against US got their ass kicked!
-Japan with nuclear bomb
-Cuba with economic sanction
-North Korea economic sanction
-USSR was crashed and trashed
-Iraq got their ass kicked (90s)
-Iraq again about to get their ass kicked completely (2003 Mid March)

USA OWNS AND RULES THE WORLD!!! :twisted:

[Desperado]

Guys, try to say something logical.
Saddam has not used mass destruction weapons against his own people. Till this time has not owned such weapon. Yes, he has used chemical weapons in war with Iran, who has not?
USA has and USSR has used such weapons against each other in Vietnam (include biological weapons!), moreover dont forget USA dropped Atom Bombs in Japan just after II WW! Is that what you call stable country? How can you prove this evil action, and in addition they dropped the atomic bomb just for show off that they own the weapon! Sounds crazy? Well that is the history.
How about Russians who killed their own people recently with chemical weapon? (in intention of saving them from Chechens) Do you think they did not know the consequences? C'mon, be fair dude. Why now you, supporter of the USA do not say anything about these facts?
Even if Saddam possessed such weapons, how on Earth you can argue that he will use it against others? Remember, you can predict, But you can not do such evil relying on these predictions and assumptions!
Well you say you support war, of course you do, what the hell you care about civils over there, far away from you called Iraqis?

Guys, try to say something logical.
Saddam has not used mass destruction weapons against his own people. Till this time has not owned such weapon. Yes, he has used chemical weapons in war with Iran, who has not?
USA has and USSR has used such weapons against each other in Vietnam (include biological weapons!), moreover dont forget USA dropped Atom Bombs in Japan just after II WW! Is that what you call stable country? How can you prove this evil action, and in addition they dropped the atomic bomb just for show off that they own the weapon! Sounds crazy? Well that is the history.
How about Russians who killed their own people recently with chemical weapon? (in intention of saving them from Chechens) Do you think they did not know the consequences? C'mon, be fair dude. Why now you, supporter of the USA do not say anything about these facts?
Even if Saddam possessed such weapons, how on Earth you can argue that he will use it against others? Remember, you can predict, But you can not do such evil relying on these predictions and assumptions!
Well you say you support war, of course you do, what the hell you care about civils over there, far away from you called Iraqis?


Gangster, I absolutely support you view, and comments. The funny part is that we know everything evil about Saddam, but we don't know much about what goes on in the Whitehouse. I was reading this article on www.newsru.com today, where it says that Pentagon is worried about the Oil fields, which might be destroyed if US attacks Iraq. Only a month ago, Bush was talking about the Weapon of Mass distruction possesed by Iraq, and now that UN found nothing, Bush has started talking about the liberation of Iraqi people. I believe, US used the Atomic bomb after WWII, just to let USSR leaders know how powerful US was, and to make sure that Japan is not invaded by USSR, which was just about to invade the whole of Japan. The part that interests me most is, how is US going to justify the deaths of hundreds of thousand(If not millions) of people who will die during US invasion of Iraq. I mean, US has been claiming that Iraq posseses Weapons of mass distruction, so the whole world would expect US to come up with the evidence after the invasion of Iraq. US has got to show the whole world, that if US had not invaded Iraq, the Iraqi leader would use his Weapons of mass distruction, right? Countries such as Russia ( which is purely interested in Iraqi oil too) are monitoring US actions very closely.
Any comments?

[Bob]

Nice to have you back in the debate joker :)

However first to gangster. you stated

Saddam has not used mass destruction weapons against his own people.

It really depends on what you count as a weapon of mass destruction then. this report is from the human rights watch an independent organisation that has been highly critical of the US in the past.

During the unsuccessful Kurdish uprising of March 1991, huge quantities of Iraqi government records were captured by the Kurds in the secret police buildings in the major towns and cities. Although much of the documents was burned or destroyed during the confusing days of the uprising, more than 18 tones of documents, contained in 847 boxes with a total number of pages estimated as over four million,… (These documents) demonstrate the Iraqi regime's policy against the Kurds, particularly during the years of 1987 through 1989. Their conclusion is that the organisation 'believes it can demonstrate convincingly a deliberate intent on the part of the government of President Saddam Hussein to destroy, through mass murder, part of Iraq's Kurdish minority. [the Kurds] were targeted during the Anfal as Kurds. [and that] Saddam Hussein's regime committed a panoply of war crimes, together with crimes against humanity and genocide.' This is not a hasty conclusion; but rather one based on a unique combination of three painstaking research projects lasted over eighteen months:
1. oral testimony from over 350 eyewitnesses or survivals;
2. forensic evidence from areas of mass graves; and
3. huge amount of captured Iraqi documents.

If you wish to read more of this document go to http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ . Much of this genocide was committed by chemical and biological weapons . And you stated that you supported this man.


You also stated.

God save innocent people!

Are the Kurdish children lying in the mass graves of northern Iraq not innocent enough for you !?

I found your points about world war 2 interesting but that was a long time ago, in a different era and I fail to see what the atomic bombing of japan has to do with the current situation.

Even if Saddam possessed such weapons, how on Earth you can argue that he will use it against others?

I want to know what you think sadam will use them for? maybe to remodel a moutain or perhaps one of his palaces has a bug problem that just can’t be fixed without radio active fallout that will last for thousands of years. although he might not use them directly against America who will oppose a nuclear armed saddam if he tries to attack Iran or Kuwait again. has humanity learned nothing from WWII appeasement does not work.

Why USA just do not leave them alone??

If saddam manages to obtain nuclear weapons he will be a direct threat to the USA. Can you name me one empire in history that when the survival or at least dominance or prosperity was threatened they did not strike viscously swiftly and without mercy? However the USA has not done this it has had an open and public debate and has tried to win the support of the world community. The usa is not some kind of all consuming dragon or evil empire gangster all though it has made some terrible mistakes and I do not always agree on its foreign policy. it is perhaps the greatest and most humane super power humanity has created.

And finally thank you counter strike for pointing out that if saddam had not being playing these silly games of brinkmanship with the USA he would not be in the position he is in to day

P.S I am afraid joker that I do not live in Uzbekistan anymore

[Bob]

i am afraid you missed the points of my quotes joker they were to illistrate a point, not to debate moral ambiguity or relativity or the character of the people i quoted.

[spoon]

Bob у тебя мания преследование мой друг ;)

[Bob]

thanks i think ;)

[joker]

here is the straightforward point no one can argue against!

USA OWNS AND RULES THE WORLD!!! :twisted:

Owning and Ruling DOES NOT MEAN Caring and Helping the World!

So, please guys save your time and stop bs about how much USA cares about the world and tries to help it by fighting evils like Saddam!!!!! USA simply does 'divide and rule' as any other previous empires in the world!

[joker]

i am afraid you missed the points of my quotes joker they were to illistrate a point, not to debate moral ambiguity or relativity or the character of the people i quoted.

Bob, your illustration of the points had a tint of morality in it, therefore I thought to debate that. Slogans like human rights, genocide etc are morally laden concepts, which can be easily employed to support a policy to achieve political ends.
If your claim were based on simply security issues I would counter-argue in those terms.

[joker]

moreover, saddam has intention to use them against his enemies! he even used them against his own people and Iran!
----------------------------------
USA, Israel and other countries also intend to use those WMD against their enemies - that is the whole idea of having them!

Yes, Saddam did use those weapons against Kurds - what did the West do then? Rumsfield was visiting his old fella , Saddam, on a weapon sale business at the time when Kurds were gassed!! UK also turned the blind eyes to the fact regardless of fierce lobbying by human rights groups!
At the end of the day, who equipped Saddam with such weapons? - your mighty friend Uncle Sam!



[/quote] after all these acts of terror how can u expect the West to leave Iraqi regime alone?! Noways, man! i do support the war! and it has nothing to do with muslims, as some people in UK say! [/quote]
-----------------------
What terror acts, 9/11?? Don't forget that 9/11 was commited by Saudies, not Iraqies! There was no a single proof that Iraq was involved in any terror attack in USA, otherwise Bush's work would have been easier - no need for weapon inspections, isn't it????



[/quote]World super powers should not allow any developing country to produce any weapons of mass destruction! for sake of peace at least....
:)[/quote]
Why not? Is it because it's easier to enslave nations who do not have adequate weapons to protect themselves from the mighty big bro - USA?

[Uzbek-Citizen 2]

well guys, i guess no one can stop the war now. and when it brakes out i will support USA and its Allies no matter what! simply because they deserve to be world powers and dictate their rules! Look at any middle east country, they are complitely dump! know nothing but their religion! it is time to move forward and develop, but no! they still stick to their holy wars and out dated patterns of life! the west worked hard to be so rich and powerful! but what middle eastern countries did?? they did practically nothing! spending their time on war with Israil, blowing up buildings and condemning the west! meanwhile the west was working hard to achieve something and they did! and i respect them for this!

of course, there are some arab countries which are rich too, like Saudi arabia and kuwait. but it is all about oil! they are just lucky to have oil beneath! without oil they are nothing! furthermore, question yourself "who built all their oil refineries and plants?" heheh,,, u know the answer, the West did! it started with British ocupation of Mecapotamia during the wold war one. they even have renamed the Mecapotamie into Iraq! they brought all the technology and so on! these dump even had no idea that they had oil and that its presious!

Now compare it with some westerns countries! like Germany or France or USA! they dont have much reserves of oil but still they are powerfull and rich! why?? technology is the answer! they use their brain! Until Arab countries learn how to use their brain but not stick to religion, i will have no respect towards them!


dont think i am american or somthing, i am ordinary muslim guy living in uzbekistan... nothing personal!

well guys, i guess no one can stop the war now. and when it brakes out i will support USA and its Allies no matter what! simply because they deserve to be world powers and dictate their rules! Look at any middle east country, they are complitely dump! know nothing but their religion! it is time to move forward and develop, but no! they still stick to their holy wars and out dated patterns of life! the west worked hard to be so rich and powerful! but what middle eastern countries did?? they did practically nothing! spending their time on war with Israil, blowing up buildings and condemning the west! meanwhile the west was working hard to achieve something and they did! and i respect them for this!

of course, there are some arab countries which are rich too, like Saudi arabia and kuwait. but it is all about oil! they are just lucky to have oil beneath! without oil they are nothing! furthermore, question yourself "who built all their oil refineries and plants?" heheh,,, u know the answer, the West did! it started with British ocupation of Mecapotamia during the wold war one. they even have renamed the Mecapotamie into Iraq! they brought all the technology and so on! these dump even had no idea that they had oil and that its presious!

Now compare it with some westerns countries! like Germany or France or USA! they dont have much reserves of oil but still they are powerfull and rich! why?? technology is the answer! they use their brain! Until Arab countries learn how to use their brain but not stick to religion, i will have no respect towards them!


dont think i am american or somthing, i am ordinary muslim guy living in uzbekistan... nothing personal!

Exactly, it is all about oil. Think of what happens when US successully invades Iraq and starts pumping Iraqi oil at 1 cent per barrel? Of course countries like Russia would want their share and start deploying their troops to Iraq to occupy some of the oil fields from where Russia too could pump out cheap oil. 35% of GDP of Russia comes from exporting oil; this is how oil dependent the Russian economy is. I personally predict a huge conflict between Russia and US after the invasion of Iraq by US.
There is not reason why one should think that US deserves to be the supreme power and control the world. All this free trade acts are only for the benifit of US and other western European countries. Only 15 percent of the world population lives in rich countries such as US, while possesing 81% of the world income. Sometimes I think that Communism was not a failure at all.

Yes, the US invasion of Iraq will be successfull, but not Victorious

[Change_Username1]

Exactly, it is all about oil. Think of what happens when US successully invades Iraq and starts pumping Iraqi oil at 1 cent per barrel? Of course countries like Russia would want their share and start deploying their troops to Iraq to occupy some of the oil fields from where Russia too could pump out cheap oil. 35% of GDP of Russia comes from exporting oil; this is how oil dependent the Russian economy is. I personally predict a huge conflict between Russia and US after the invasion of Iraq by US.
There is not reason why one should think that US deserves to be the supreme power and control the world. All this free trade acts are only for the benifit of US and other western European countries. Only 15 percent of the world population lives in rich countries such as US, while possesing 81% of the world income. Sometimes I think that Communism was not a failure at all.[/quote]


no way man. i think u are wrong. the communism was a complete failure. its idelogy was not natural! how can u expect all people to be at the same level? it is impossible. some is rich and some is poor, some one influencial and someone not. and its nothing wrong about it. it is exactly how it should be! i believe that western countries are so rich and powerful only because they worked hard! under communism people are becoming lazy as they dont see the point of working harder as u wont benefit from it but someone else will!

the democracy isnt perfect either, but it is better alternative to commusim.

well, u say u predict a conflict between USA and Russia?? hehh,,u must be kidding! Russia is too weak at the moment, i dont think Putin can do much about it. Certainly, they gona have some influence over Western decisions but it still will be very limited. USA is too far from other countries in terms development.

U talk about GDP of russia? heh, Russia's annual national income is just over 250 billion US dallars. it is virtually nothing in comparison to USA national income! it is almost 10 trillion US dollars! Might of US military, its economy and its influencial Allies, make the USA number one in the world! No one, not even russia can oppose its decisions now...

in general i dont support US international policy, but it is better to have US as super power rather than China or Russia... Amricans deserved what they are now.

[Change_Username1]

Yes, the US invasion of Iraq will be successfull, but not Victorious


interesting point! i partially agree with u. certainly, they will smash the Iraqis army in a month or so after the invasion commences. However, holding it under control is far more difficult. But think, if USA really improves the situation as it "wants" to, then i dont think iraqies people will countinue to oppose the US presence.

The best outcome:

After the fall of Saddam regime the UN sancations will be lifted and new investments will flow into the country - Iraqi people themselves will benefit from it. In a decade or so, the Iraqi people will forget about the war and live better life, similar to Kuwait. US will reduce its military presence in iraq to some thousands troops and all gona live happily ever after... The whole world will have oil at lower prices and Iraqi people will enjoy their lives.


The worst cenario:

During the invasion something goes wrong, like Saddam uses chemical weapons against US-led coalition! the US will have to retaliate by doing something very nasty! Consequently, increasing causulties from both sides and the condemnation of war by the whole world (including US best allies e.g. UK, Spain, Italy. Canada.)! if this happens then probably the US will loose this war in the same way it happened in Vietnam... (the probability that US-led coalition looses the war is 0.2 )



i personally prefer the best out come, though...

www.newsru.com
Иракский режим намерен в случае войны "причинить ущерб или уничтожить" нефтяные промыслы. С таким утверждением выступил сегодня пожелавший сохранить анонимность высокопоставленный представитель Пентагона.

По его словам, президент США Джордж Буш еще не принял решения о проведении силовой операции в Ираке. Тем не менее, продолжил, представитель Пентагона, "для разработчиков военных планов важно учитывать любые непредвиденные обстоятельства, которые могут возникнуть, если президент примет такое решение".


Одним из самых тревожных обстоятельств в министерстве обороны США считают "способность и намерение" иракского режима взрывать нефтяные скважины, сообщает ИТАР-ТАСС.

В этой связи представитель Пентагона сообщил, что уже разработана такая стратегия, которая позволит американским военным "в максимально быстрые сроки взять под свой контроль нефтяные промыслы Ирака". Он пояснил, что иракская нефть "имеет критически важное значение" для народа этой страны. "Соседние с Ираком страны также проявляют огромный интерес к тому, что произойдет с этими нефтепромыслами", - добавил представитель министерства обороны США.

[Bob]

This board is starting to get a little extreme for my tastes however i would like to ask a question.

does anyone believe that saddam or his regime should be able to reach their goal of creating or obtaining a nuclear weapon?

This board is starting to get a little extreme for my tastes however i would like to ask a question.

does anyone believe that saddam or his regime should be able to reach their goal of creating or obtaining a nuclear weapon?

No. Saddam's regime should be restricted from obtaining or creating any WMD. In fact, Sadam is ought to be replaced with a human being, which posessed a central nervous system, who would understand the concept of respect for own nation and the concept of care and sympathy. BUT WAR should not be an option. UN estimated at least 1.5 million casualties from the Iraqi side. Look at the amplitude of this value( :shock: AAAAAHHHHHHGGGG!). C'mon, US could at least poison Saddam by bribing Saddam's cook. When US tried to stabilize the Iraqi-Kuwaiti conflict in 1990s, this led to the emergance of Anti-US groups such as Al-Qaeda etc.
I just can;t stress enough :x how much I would like US to mind its business :x
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Desperado]

Dear Bob and Uzbek citizen and others who support the war against Iraq.
I have been following your posts for some time. Now I can confidently say that you are on the side who justifies the war. And I think it is clear for you that I am on the opposite side to. I am absolutely against the booming war. I am against the military actions of the US and UK.
You think that military intervention against Iraq is justful. But you are not thinking about political stability in Middle East. If war starts, hundreds of thousands civil will suffer from this, there will appear a mass of immigrants on all borders around Iraq. Many different groups will try to sieze the power in central government of Iraq after toppling Saddam. After the invasion, it will become inevitable to avoid from civil war between different ethnic, religious and political groups. This situation should really bother you if you care about stability in the region.

After all, I strongly support diplomatic solution to the problem not military. If allies are against Saddam they must find another way but fighting against Iraq and iraqi people.

In addition I do not see any special interest for allies in just establishing democratic government in Iraq. Why they should care about it? Of course it is the oil they are desperate of. There are many countries in the world where democracy does not exist like Libya, N Korea, many African, Asian countries.

His previous post Bob asks us to forget about what has US done in the past. Is that all what you can answer to me? Well then forget about the things Saddam has done in the past. Bobs answers are to my questions are so weak that I have no time to analyse all of them now.
Also he asks that for what Saddam wants to use WMD if he gets them? He gives this question because he does think that someone make a weapon only to kill someone. This is wrong. You can make a weapon to defence yourself! In the current isolated sitution Iraqi government sees a great danger from USA, UK, Israel and some other Europen states. Thats why Iraq seeks weapons.

However Iraq is proving that he has not got WMD.

So the issue of war should not exist until UN inspectors find something. Even if they find such weapons, diplomatic way of solution must be followed!

[Bob]

dear gangster.

i do support war in Iraq, as a last resort; However i believe Saddam Hussein and his regime needs to be gotten rid of! and in its place a democratic humanitarian economically stable government should be established. now in my earlier posts i stated that i would prefer if he and his top officials were assassinated. I would also support if Saddam moved in to exile. I would even support it if Saddam were to stay on in Iraq as some kind of constitutional monarch and relinquished all real power to some kind of multi ethnic parliament protected by international troops. but this is never going to happen! i believe in humanitarianism but also realism.

secondly you state that a war with will destabilize the middle east by destabilization Iraq. yet you and the people on your side of the debate keep insisting that this is a war just about oil you can not have it both ways! do you think that if the united states of America were after oil that after the war it will really just allow civil war to destroy the precious oil fields. detractors of the USA constantly point out that it has supported dictators like Saddam in countries across the world and argue that it will simply install another dictator when it ousts Saddam. come on show some common sense after campaigning for the last 12 months on how evil Saddam is and repeatedly stating how they will bring freedom to Iraq do you really believe they will install another dictator. that is very bad PR especial with a presidential election next year. i will admit they screwed up royally in Afghanistan but look at south Korea and Germany. south Korea at the end of the Korean war was nothing more then a dirt farm. it had been ravaged by Japan during world ww2 used as a sweat shop during the time of French administration and before that was in a game of permanent tag-of-war with china and Japan. now it is the 12 largest economy in the world and after Japan has the highest GDP per person in the whole of Asia as well as having a truly democratic government. this has been repeated with Germany and Taiwan.

next you state you strongly believe in a diplomatic solution. so i take it you support weapon inspectors? well for now i will assume you do. so do you really believe that if the US had not applied pressure to Iraq that they would be in there? believe it or not it is cause and effect. even Koffi Anna has admitted that if America had not used force as a leverage that there would be no weapon inspectors in there today! you must also must separate Saddam Hussein’s regime and the Iraqi people. when allied troops moved in to Iraq during the last gulf war they were welcomed as liberators officials of Saddam’s regime were taken out on to the streets of Iraqi towns and executed.

In addition I do not see any special interest for allies in just establishing democratic government in Iraq. Why they should care about it? Of course it is the oil they are desperate of.

you are right they are after oil but they are also trying to prevent him from creating weapons of mass destruction. but because of this we should ignore that he is a war criminal, a mad man, a genocidal dictator? NO. there is not just one reason why Saddam has to go there are many.

next you say that i claimed that we should forget what the USA has done in the past i did not i said it was from a different era that had a different mindset and does not apply to the current situation. however Iraq continues to try to create weapons of mass destruction, Iraq continues to persecute ethnic minorities Iraq continues to be controlled by a genocidal mad man. can you see the difference?

yow see Saddam Hussein as a victim, some poor helpless puppy. he is a mad man he kills and tortures people as a recreational activity. I think the problem with to many people today is they see to many monsters with Anglo Saxon names. he wants WMDs because he is a narcissistic, self indulgent, megalomaniac. he likes to feel powerful which is understandable considering the childhood he had. he does not build weapons to protect himself because if he wanted just to protect himself he would not have thrown out the weapons inspectors in 1997.

next you claim that he is proving that he does not have weapons. no he is not Hans Blixs has condemned Iraq several times on not helping. Iraq insures that all interviews with scientists were done in front of Iraqi officials and when finally this ended he said if any scientist tries to flee or talks there families would be executed. in my opinion this is not helpful behaviour.

finally you say that if they find evidence of the development of such weapons there should still be diplomacy. so even if he has been found to be lying again you believe he should get off ?

i hope these arguments are not to weak for you.

P.S. don’t worry every one i go back to university tomorrow so this will be the last long post.

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,882526,00.html

interesting and amusing article about iraq people should check it out.

[me_]

**** Iraq **** Us .. and **** their oil trade!
****ing dumbshits.

[Desperado]

TONY Blair has failed to convince the majority of Britons of the need for war with Iraq, according to a new poll.

The YouGov poll, for The Sunday Times, found that of nearly 2,000 people questioned only 26% said Mr Blair had convinced them that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is sufficiently dangerous to justify military action.

The majority, 68%, said Mr Blair had failed to do so.

Even among Labour supporters, only 40% had been convinced by Mr Blair's arguments, while 53% had not.

The poll also detected declining support for Britain participating in military against Iraq in the absence of specific United Nations' approval.

While 72% said they would support a war which had the backing of the UN only 20% thought British troops should join a US-led force in the absence of such backing.

When this question was first asked four months ago, a third of people said they would support the deployment of British troops in such circumstances.

An overwhelming majority, 90%, said they believed US President George Bush is bent on war irrespective of whether Iraq is found to be in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

YouGov surveyed a representative sample of 1,955 adults, online, on Thursday and Friday.

Aol news 27.01.03

wbbs.

[joker]

Until Arab countries learn how to use their brain but not stick to religion, i will have no respect towards them!


this is a very shallow point which shows that you don't know much about Arabs and Islam! I agree that Arabs should use more their brains, the same though applies to us, Uzbeks! Don't fool yourself and be self-critical - it's healthy for self-development!
BUT! I don't agree about religion! Had Arabs stuck to Islam, which makes it essential to study and develop personally, they would have been more developed ant not so much concerned about money and pussy! This does not apply to all Arabs for many of them do work and study hard but to those Arabs that rule and reign those countries!

[Change_Username1]

u say "many of them" do work and study hard? hehe,,,it is just a theory! i dont see any results yet! which means they dont work hard enough! :)

[Desperado]

Baghdad's official media continued to criticise US threats of military action on Monday but remained silent on the key report due to be delivered by chief weapons inspectors.
"Death is the fate that it [the United States] should think about before anything else," government newspaper al-Jumhouriyah warned.

There are 25 million suicide attackers born in Baghdad and Iraq's cities, villages and desert.



Al-Jumhouriyah

As well as highlighting Iraqi defiance, there were front-page reports of anti-war demonstrations around the world.

"Angry protests invade world capitals and cities to protest US threats against Iraq," said al-Jumhouriyah.

Al-Thawra, mouthpiece of the ruling Baath Party, said Iraq was preparing to face any aggression.

"When the moment comes, all human and material resources will be mobilised to confront the aggressors and defeat them," the paper said.

Al-Jumhouriyah warned: "It [the US] should realise that there are 25 million suicide attackers born in Baghdad and Iraq's cities, villages and desert."

The newspaper described US President George Bush as a "trickster" and said UK Prime Minister Tony Blair was a "despicable liar" who was "toeing the line of American aggressive policy to Iraq" despite "vociferous opposition" at home.

"In his hysterical statements, Little Bush has been openly voicing his frustration and his annoyance at the failure of American aggressive policy towards Iraq," the paper said.

"He does not care about demonstrations in Washington and other American and European cities condemning his sick threats.

"Nor does he care about the work of the arms inspectors."

US 'isolated'

Babel, a newspaper run by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's eldest son Uday, ran a front-page editorial accusing the US of double standards.

"Many are still wondering why is there such an aggressive campaign against us...when the evil (US) administration does not move a finger against the challenge presented by North Korea."


"Trickster" Bush only interested in oil, say Iraq's papers
North Korea has pulled out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and recently kicked out UN weapons inspectors.

"One of the main reasons for insisting on the aggression against Iraq - and not on any other country and not over any weapons of mass destruction - is the US interest" in oil, Babel said.

"US strategic interest in our Arab region is primarily about oil, as the US demand for oil is increasing and would peak within 15 years and Iraq's strategic reserves are the most important in the world," it added.

Al-Thawrah newspaper said the US was "completely isolated, domestically and internally, as a result of its threats and aggressions against Iraq".

"The only way facing Washington now is, therefore, to change its policy whose incorrectness and failure has been proven by events," the newspaper said.

[joker]

u say "many of them" do work and study hard? hehe,,,it is just a theory! i dont see any results yet! which means they dont work hard enough! :)

What results do you want to see? Under-development is not such a simplistic issue to be saying that the reason for that is that people concerned are lazy and stupid. There are many multifacet reasons which clever minds have not been able to grasp let alone simple minds....

[Change_Username1]

There are 25 million suicide attackers born in Baghdad and Iraq's cities, villages and desert.

well, i think this is bit exagerated! Iraqies population is about 20-25 million peopel, how could Iraqi women give birth to so many "suicide attackers"?? or probably u mean that all iraqies are prepared to give their lives for Saddam's regime?? hehe, i dont think so! the same was happening during the Gulf War in 1991. they were saying that their soldiers would never retreat from Kuwait, meanwhile over 100000 soldiers deserted within the 3 days of ground operation by UN forces. i am sure majority of iraqie people want to see Saddam toppeled, they are just not allowed to express their opinion!

"When the moment comes, all human and material resources will be mobilised to confront the aggressors and defeat them," the paper said.

well, i think everyone who opposes the war would not have enough to time to "confront the aggressors [US & UK] and defeat them". US and UK promise to have very quick war. perhaps it will last only 1-2 months. Once, the Saddam toppeled, i am confident iraqies themselves will selebrate it in Bagdad streets. and in a couple of years everything will be forgotten.

Al-Jumhouriyah warned: "It [the US] should realise that there are 25 million suicide attackers born in Baghdad and Iraq's cities, villages and desert." ehh,, it is just a bullshit... even if they include all sheeps and camels as "suicide attackers" they cant mobilise 25 million of them.



The newspaper described US President George Bush as a "trickster" and said UK Prime Minister Tony Blair was a "despicable liar" who was "toeing the line of American aggressive policy to Iraq" despite "vociferous opposition" at home.

well, i am in the UK, and no one calls Tony Blair a "liar". but very few support the war. thats true...


He does not care about demonstrations in Washington and other American and European cities condemning his sick threats.
"Nor does he care about the work of the arms inspectors."

yeap, u are right about demonstrations. i dont think they can change the opinion of Bush and his cabinet... BUT, it looks like he still cares about arms inspectors, otherwise he would have launched the invasion without all those Resolutions.



US 'isolated'


No, no and again no. there are quite many countries who are ready to join US-led coalition. Many people talk about UK, but they forget that Italy, Spain, and most Eastern European countries promised to join in. i am sure UK and even France will participate... At the end of the day, i guess the rest of the world is isolated from US but not US from the world. IF not for the US and some its allies, they would not be a UN in the first place. Without US the world can not operate normally, as it is a single super power.


"Many are still wondering why is there such an aggressive campaign against us...when the evil (US) administration does not move a finger against the challenge presented by North Korea."

US will deal with N.K later - not now. u have to be consistent... wait for your turn.. :)


"One of the main reasons for insisting on the aggression against Iraq - and not on any other country and not over any weapons of mass destruction - is the US interest" in oil, Babel said.

yeap, totally agree with u! it is all about oil. but dont forget about other conflicts, like Kosovo, Somalia, Rowanda, they too were about oil??? i dont think so... it was about human rights and massacre (perhaps we could exlude Kosovo,,,)



Al-Thawrah newspaper said the US was "completely isolated, domestically and internally, as a result of its threats and aggressions against Iraq". "

i have seen any western newspaper saying that...


The only way facing Washington now is, therefore, to change its policy whose incorrectness and failure has been proven by events," the newspaper said.

[Tank]

I think the US will fail this mission, like when the fail in Vietnam losing 3000 soldiers.

[Change_Username1]

I think the US will fail this mission, like when the fail in Vietnam losing 3000 soldiers.

:D da uj! i am sorry, but i guess u are misinformed about Vietnam. US lost not 3000 soldiers, but 58000 (the official figure). but dont forget that causilties from Vietnamies side was over 3 million.

US-led coalition will be succeseful with Iraq, i am 98% confident! they are just too strong to fail. The mighty USSR were struggeling with mujaheddins in Afganistan for 10 years, but it didnt work out! the US spent 3 monthes to defeat the same enemy. some people were saying that US will have 2nd Vietnam in Afganistan, and they were wrong.

[Kolobok]

I think the US will fail this mission, like when the fail in Vietnam losing 3000 soldiers.
They won't fail this time,because this time they have got huge capabilities i mean millitary capabilities,well...God knows what will happen.
***Kolobok supports US

[Change_Username1]

They won't fail this time,because this time they have got huge capabilities i mean millitary capabilities,well...God knows what will happen.
***Kolobok supports US

yeah, i share your opinion. but the US had huge capabilities during Vietnam too. Well, certainly now they are strong as never before.

[Tank]

Kolobok suports US, C’mon man how can u support them? Its wrong the US have no rights to do that, they have no rights to destroy someone home without any reasons.

[Change_Username1]

Kolobok suports US, C’mon man how can u support them? Its wrong the US have no rights to do that, they have no rights to destroy someone home without any reasons.

u must be jokking! how can u say they have no reasons? of course, they do! they are protecting their national interests. i guess u dont follow the international news or something. if i start listing all reasons for the war with Iraq, i guess it gona take hours.

[Change_Username1]

guys! as i have predicted the Russia at the end of the day will support the US stance towards Iraq.

"At the present time, there is no need to adopt new resolutions on Iraq."
Yuri Fedotov, Russian deputy foreign minister

Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2699709.stm

i guess the US offered piece of cake to Russia or promised not to critisize it over Chechnay.

[Tank]

Kolobok suports US, C’mon man how can u support them? Its wrong the US have no rights to do that, they have no rights to destroy someone home without any reasons.

u must be jokking! how can u say they have no reasons? of course, they do! they are protecting their national interests. i guess u dont follow the international news or something. if i start listing all reasons for the war with Iraq, i guess it gona take hours.

Interests in oil? or what? Listen man tell you something Republicans controls almost 60% of the US media, and UK is the ally of the US in this war so all theyse resons are bullshit. Give me one reson why wolud USA scary of Irac?

[Change_Username1]

Interests in oil? or what? Listen man tell you something Republicans controls almost 60% of the US media, and UK is the ally of the US in this war so all theyse resons are bullshit. Give me one reson why wolud USA scary of Irac?


well, u figured out yourself. it is about oil, but only partially. the Iraqi regime posses a threat to the US. Perhaps, not in direct way, but they have an intention to use it against Israil and US-UK forces in Kuwait. i think it is more than enough to take a pre-emptive stricke!

it already happened in the past. remember? the Iraq has launched Scud missles on Israel and even Saudi Arabia. What stops Saddam doing it again once he obtains some WMD?

in my personal opinion, just knowing that someone wants to harm u, gives u the right to punch him first! Probably, Saddam has not any Nuclear Weapons but his intention to obtain them worries the US! At the end of the day, the Iraq has already breached the Resolution 1441 by omitting some chemichal warheads...

Finnally, there is a probability that some terrorist groups can acquire the WMD from Saddam and use it against US and its Allies...

[Tank_lof _off]

Why then these UK-US forces don’t do anything to stop Israel’s occupation the Palestinian land if they such a nice guys, because they don’t have oil? Man don't full yourself these countries will never do anything for others without their interests. And they know while Saddam on top will never get any cheap or free oil.
Maybe you are majoring in politics, I am majoring in business let me tell u something that Arabs world market share is 58 billion dollars which almost 38% of world market, and u know exactly that mostly their money came from oil. Keep in mind, there is only thing that the US doesn’t have, it doesn’t have a control on it.

[Bob]

joker i respect your arguments they are analitical logical and humanitarian if not a littl black and white. however gangster you are and extremist calling the US administraion evil, saying you support saddam not just oppose war, calling blair a lyer, saying that their are 25million suicide bombers in iraq, yoiu are an extremist and i can not debate with you!

[BlacklabeL]

What you guys really think US will fight Iraq? G.W.Bush is losing support in nation. Over 60% of American citizens are against US-Iraqi war. Sure US keeps mobilizing troops to Arab allies, but come on. Get real people. If soldiers are so happy to be able to go home, what kind of a war is it going to be. Gorgie-Pooh thinks if he gained so much attention in War against terrorism, he thinks he will be able to win next presidential election if he will go to a war against Iraq. Yes interest in oil is one of the factors why he is so eager about this war, but he also wants to o into a history of America as a greatest humanitarian president who caares about world and peace so much. Even my Global Challenge Professor, who is republican HATES Bush.

[Desperado]

joker i respect your arguments they are analitical logical and humanitarian if not a littl black and white. however gangster you are and extremist calling the US administraion evil, saying you support saddam not just oppose war, calling blair a lyer, saying that their are 25million suicide bombers in iraq, yoiu are an extremist and i can not debate with you!

:D
Hey dude actually right above you did quote from Iraqi newspaper 'Al-Jumhouriyah'. It is not my opinion. I guess you read the post a lil bit uncareful. I just wanted people to see the other side of the coin, i.e. read Iraqi media as well, not only western.
The problem with you, i assume, is that you sound too simplistic with your thoughts, otherwise you would not call someone against the warmongers extremist.
The other thing is I OPPOSE WAR, that is why I am against US and that is why I support Iraq. Saddam is trying to defence his own home, what is wrong with that? And I support everyone who is for defending his home against enemies.
If you followed the news yesterday, the UN inspectors could not find any WMD (you can check the report where they say that there is no signs of WMD), however they came up (or were forced to came up) with the information that there are 6500 chemical weapons (with a huge probabilty that they were bought from the US some time ago). Hmm, chemical weapons, so what? There are so many countries around who own such weapons. The main thing is that US and UK started warmongering with the claims, that Iraq has WMD, and now when there is no evidence for that, should not they give up opressing Iraq with honour? They can not do it, because they have no honour no shame no sympathy. There you see that they are not after WMD but something else.
PS. I am not forcing you to debate with me Bob, you are an open minded warmonger and I am an pro peace extremist. Good luck, enjoy the coming war.

[To Tank]

Tank wrote:

I think the US will fail this mission, like when the fail in Vietnam losing 3000 soldiers.


Really what about 100,000 men they lost!
Know their history!

Siege

[Change_Username1]

Tank wrote:

I think the US will fail this mission, like when the fail in Vietnam losing 3000 soldiers.


Really what about 100,000 men they lost!
Know their history!

Siege


nope man, u are bit exagerating, they lost around 58000 soldiers...

[Change_Username1]

Why then these UK-US forces don’t do anything to stop Israel’s occupation the Palestinian land if they such a nice guys, because they don’t have oil? Man don't full yourself these countries will never do anything for others without their interests. And they know while Saddam on top will never get any cheap or free oil.
Maybe you are majoring in politics, I am majoring in business let me tell u something that Arabs world market share is 58 billion dollars which almost 38% of world market, and u know exactly that mostly their money came from oil. Keep in mind, there is only thing that the US doesn’t have, it doesn’t have a control on it.

No, i major in finance not politics. by the way, u didnt specify "world market" of what?? there are many financial markets u know... if u ment Oil market, probably u are right. but in general, Arab economies are no match to US. Check out the GDP of USA, i guess u would be surprised. they produce 40 times more than Russia and 10 times more than China!


Why then these UK-US forces don’t do anything to stop Israel’s occupation the Palestinian land if they such a nice guys, because they don’t have oil

i dont blame Israel for the occupation of Palestenian terretories, simple because it was Arab counties who started the "Six Day War". The Israel had to defend itself, as Palestinians were helping Jordan, Siria and Egypt to invade Israel. It happened many times before the "six day war", once Israel leaves all those terretories both terrorists and some enemy arab countries take advantage of it!
Check out the history, Israel and other Arab countries fought at least 3-4 wars! The Israel had to do something to ensure its security! and at the end of the day, it is arab countries who strike first! it happened in the past and may happen again!

and Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with oil! Why should US, UK and other western counties support the Palestine? They keep carrying out terrorist activities and so on. If they stoped blowing up buildings and killiing innocent people, i am sure the international community would support the establishment of Palestinian state!

Tank wrote:

I think the US will fail this mission, like when the fail in Vietnam losing 3000 soldiers.


Really what about 100,000 men they lost!
Know their history!

Siege


nope man, u are bit exagerating, they lost around 58000 soldiers...


To be more precise, US lost 56720 men

[Change_Username1]

Hey dude actually right above you did quote from Iraqi newspaper 'Al-Jumhouriyah'. It is not my opinion. I guess you read the post a lil bit uncareful. I just wanted people to see the other side of the coin, i.e. read Iraqi media as well, not only western.

how can u trust Iraqi media? it is controlled by Saddam's son Uday! and u believ they will tell u the truth? i have a satelite system at home, and everytime i switch to Iraqi channel, they only show hospitals packed with sick children, anti-amarican demonstratitions or Saddams meetings! it all propaganda! Certainly, the western media is not perfect either, but at least they dont take sides, and dont play music when the Saddam is on TV.


The other thing is I OPPOSE WAR, that is why I am against US and that is why I support Iraq. Saddam is trying to defence his own home, what is wrong with that? And I support everyone who is for defending his home against enemies.
:D "Saddam is trying to defence his own home..." u must be joking! who invaded Kuwait? who was firing Scud missiles on Israel and Saudi Arabia? who started the war with Iran? For me personally, it does not look like selfdefence u know...


If you followed the news yesterday, the UN inspectors could not find any WMD (you can check the report where they say that there is no signs of WMD), however they came up (or were forced to came up) with the information that there are 6500 chemical weapons (with a huge probabilty that they were bought from the US some time ago).

Nope, they were imported from Germany and UK, both counties admited that, but the equipment from the US. By the way, the inspectors were not forced to report on missing 6500 chemical warheads! i guess u didnt watched the news till the end or something. The Hans Blix said that the inspectors in 1991 had evidence that those 6500 chemical warheads existed, but when Iraq was told to disclose them they said they all were destroied in 1991! And now they refuse to give evidence that they were destroid and show the scientist who did that!


Hmm, chemical weapons, so what? There are so many countries around who own such weapons.


So what??!!? oh really? well, it is ok that a stable and friendly country posses such weapons. but we are talking about Iraq, and u know it is far from politically stable. All the decisions are taken by only one mad man! he even used WMD against his Kurdish minority and aganst Iran! Why cant Iraq disarm peacefully? Because the Saddam wants to have such power and dictate its rules to other Arabic countris and the west! Take the example of South Africa! they too had chemical weapons and nuclear programmes! but when the leadership changed they allowed UN inspectors in the country and really cooperated! UN managed to disarm South Africa only in 2 years! While they are trying to disarm Saddam for already 12 years! Clearly, the Iraq does not wish to cooperate! The same happened with Kazakstan, Ukrane and Belarus! all these counties reduced their stocks of WMD or, in case of Kazakstan, completely destroid them under UN supervision!


Good luck, enjoy the coming war.

yeah, that gona be something special!

[Change_Username1]

What you guys really think US will fight Iraq? G.W.Bush is losing support in nation. Over 60% of American citizens are against US-Iraqi war. Sure US keeps mobilizing troops to Arab allies, but come on. Get real people. If soldiers are so happy to be able to go home, what kind of a war is it going to be. Gorgie-Pooh thinks if he gained so much attention in War against terrorism, he thinks he will be able to win next presidential election if he will go to a war against Iraq. Yes interest in oil is one of the factors why he is so eager about this war, but he also wants to o into a history of America as a greatest humanitarian president who caares about world and peace so much. Even my Global Challenge Professor, who is republican HATES Bush.


ahh,,, women! :D of course they will fight Iraq! do u have any idea how much the US and UK already spent to send all these lads to the gulf?? US will not withdraw without disarming Saddam, otherwise the Bush will loose his 2004 elections! i give 98% that war will brake out within next 2 weeks! right after Bush meets Blair and after the main US contingent arrives to the gulf....

[Desperado]

how can u trust Iraqi media? it is controlled by Saddam's son Uday! and u believ they will tell u the truth? i have a satelite system at home, and everytime i switch to Iraqi channel, they only show hospitals packed with sick children, anti-amarican demonstratitions or Saddams meetings! it all propaganda! Certainly, the western media is not perfect either, but at least they dont take sides, and dont play music when the Saddam is on TV.
I am amazed why are telling me all these? I know that Iraqi media is not highly reliable and I am not protecting it, also, I know that western media is not perfect either.



:D "Saddam is trying to defence his own home..." u must be joking! who invaded Kuwait? who was firing Scud missiles on Israel and Saudi Arabia? who started the war with Iran? For me personally, it does not look like selfdefence u know...
What was that 'lol' about?? Do I sound that stupid? And I am not joking at all. Kuwait a few decades ago used to Iraqi province, and Saddam still claims for Kuwait. On the other side, the reason of invasion was that Kuwaiti government betrayed OPEC and started to sell their petrol very cheap to the West. to get riche in a short time. This affected very badly on the oil producing countries like Iraq. After failed talks, war occured. I notice that you are going into history, unfortunately it is not what we are talking about now. I can also ask you questions like 'Who dropped atoimic bombs to Japan? Who killed innocent Vietnamese trying to come over USSR? Who fuelled war in Afghanistan? Who bombed Iraq in 1990? Who manupulated the war in Balkans etc? I answered this only to your information, however it doesnt have anything to do with the present situation. Keep you focus on the current situation.

Nope, they were imported from Germany and UK, both counties admited that, but the equipment from the US. Thank you for admitting this
By the way, the inspectors were not forced to report on missing 6500 chemical warheads! i guess u didnt watched the news till the end or something. The Hans Blix said that the inspectors in 1991 had evidence that those 6500 chemical warheads existed, but when Iraq was told to disclose them they said they all were destroied in 1991! And now they refuse to give evidence that they were destroid and show the scientist who did that!
This is too weak to prove that Iraq still has them.

So what??!!? oh really? well, it is ok that a stable and friendly country posses such weapons. but we are talking about Iraq, and u know it is far from politically stable. All the decisions are taken by only one mad man! he even used WMD against his Kurdish minority and aganst Iran! Why cant Iraq disarm peacefully? Because the Saddam wants to have such power and dictate its rules to other Arabic countris and the west! Take the example of South Africa! they too had chemical weapons and nuclear programmes! but when the leadership changed they allowed UN inspectors in the country and really cooperated! UN managed to disarm South Africa only in 2 years! While they are trying to disarm Saddam for already 12 years! Clearly, the Iraq does not wish to cooperate! The same happened with Kazakstan, Ukrane and Belarus! all these counties reduced their stocks of WMD or, in case of Kazakstan, completely destroid them under UN supervision!
Political instable states according to US are : Iran, Iraq, Libya, N. Korea, Cuba, Lebanon, as they are called 'rough states' Many of them has WMD. Why they are not attacking world? Whereas 'politically stable' as you call Russia using it chemical weapons against its own people and chechens. Being politically stable is not the key not to use dangerous weapons. Sticking to WMD you are subtracting our attention from economic interests of the US in Iraq. C'mon be man and accept once that the West needs Iraqi oil, can you do that?


Good luck, enjoy the coming war.

yeah, that gona be something special!
I cant imagine someone supporting bloodshed and war for just to have a fun...

[Tank]

hey Uzbek citizen change ur nick on USA-citizen, I think u wanna be on a big side. Big time whole war. At least you could’ve think about Iraqis, they are Muslim, punk ass atheist.

care about them because they are human beings with lives and families not because they are muslim, you bigot

[Bob]

Who watched the State Of The Union Address today?

i was just glad he did not say folks.

although i dont particle want to debate you anymore gangster, i would just like to question your logic.

you stated
Kuwait a few decades ago used to Iraqi province, and Saddam still claims for Kuwait

yes this is true however the citizens of kuiwait wish to say indepedent and free of sadams regimes control and if you work by this logic what if russia desired to have uzbekistan back it has only been just over a decade sice uzbekistan won indepence from the USSR. were do you draw the line of destinction and at what time does a nation have rights to self determination 10 years 100years 1000years. prehaps turkey still has a claim on iraq or rome on britain. your argument is flawed.

On the other side, the reason of invasion was that Kuwaiti government betrayed OPEC and started to sell their petrol very cheap to the West. to get riche in a short time. This affected very badly on the oil producing countries like Iraq.

so its okay if iraq goes to war over oil but not the USA thats a contradiction.

Nope, they were imported from Germany and UK, both counties admited that, but the equipment from the US.

Thank you for admitting this


no one ever denied that mistakes were made

as for the polls i believe most people have about as much knowledge about the sitution in iraq as they do about quatum mechanics.

finally I would like to say I respect people who want peace. lets hope they act as a moral beacon for society so we do not return to the mind set of the 19th and first half of the 20th century. However sometimes war is necessary. There may be a consequences for every action but there can be a much harder more dire consequences for inaction. and extremism on either side only alienates.

[Bob]

Who watched the State Of The Union Address today?

i was just glad he did not say folks.

although i dont particle want to debate you anymore gangster, i would just like to question your logic.

you stated
Kuwait a few decades ago used to Iraqi province, and Saddam still claims for Kuwait

yes this is true however the citizens of kuiwait wish to say indepedent and free of sadams regimes control and if you work by this logic what if russia desired to have uzbekistan back it has only been just over a decade sice uzbekistan won indepence from the USSR. were do you draw the line of destinction and at what time does a nation have rights to self determination 10 years 100years 1000years. prehaps turkey still has a claim on iraq or rome on britain. your argument is flawed.

On the other side, the reason of invasion was that Kuwaiti government betrayed OPEC and started to sell their petrol very cheap to the West. to get riche in a short time. This affected very badly on the oil producing countries like Iraq.

so its okay if iraq goes to war over oil but not the USA thats a contradiction.

Nope, they were imported from Germany and UK, both counties admited that, but the equipment from the US.

Thank you for admitting this


no one ever denied that mistakes were made

as for the polls i believe most people have about as much knowledge about the sitution in iraq as they do about quatum mechanics.

finally I would like to say I respect people who want peace. lets hope they act as a moral beacon for society so we do not return to the mind set of the 19th and first half of the 20th century. However sometimes war is nece