US is going to war tomarrow... dang...
Sunday, March 16, 2003 by IPlural | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
opps
 |
|
Page 78 of 85 | |
|
|---|
paxx
Reply #1542 Thursday, April 10, 2003 5:49 AM
Reply #1542 Thursday, April 10, 2003 5:49 AM
Orion, we don't know yet if the people you refer to represent a majority.
Just a few days ago, they were saying quite the opposite.
I don't have an opinion on this yet. I just want to wait a few more days/weeks, and see how it turns out. Right now, all wew know is that some people went in the streets welcoming the US. Do most Irakis feel the same? Unknown yet.
But yes, what I am indeed sure of, is that everybody is happy to be rid of Saddam. But who will replace him? That is possibly what a lot of people are waiting to see.
As for you first paragraph, well, I'm starting to wonder if there ever was actually a war. Looks to me that Iraq was reall just an unorganized, militarely incapable rogue country. Anyway, whatever it was, it's over. The outcome makes no doubt anymore. There are still pockets of resistance here and there, and there could be many terrorist acts for the next few years, but essentially, it looks to be over.
Just a few days ago, they were saying quite the opposite.
I don't have an opinion on this yet. I just want to wait a few more days/weeks, and see how it turns out. Right now, all wew know is that some people went in the streets welcoming the US. Do most Irakis feel the same? Unknown yet.
But yes, what I am indeed sure of, is that everybody is happy to be rid of Saddam. But who will replace him? That is possibly what a lot of people are waiting to see.
As for you first paragraph, well, I'm starting to wonder if there ever was actually a war. Looks to me that Iraq was reall just an unorganized, militarely incapable rogue country. Anyway, whatever it was, it's over. The outcome makes no doubt anymore. There are still pockets of resistance here and there, and there could be many terrorist acts for the next few years, but essentially, it looks to be over.
JamMeister33
Reply #1543 Thursday, April 10, 2003 6:12 AM
Reply #1543 Thursday, April 10, 2003 6:12 AM
I think someone should put a bullet through the heart of this miserable thread and end our suffering....
Orion
Reply #1545 Thursday, April 10, 2003 6:34 AM
Reply #1545 Thursday, April 10, 2003 6:34 AM
Crae: I got it now....retoric...you know the answer to that. If you honestly do not, well...let's just say I gave you a lot more credit than you're due.
paxx: Time will answer all of the questions. No argument there. I suspect that several days ago, the population was still too afraid to speak up, and now they have a little bit more of a comfort zone. I have no doubt that it will be a vast majority of the population will be happy about this invasion...but again, only time will tell for sure. A country is large place and I'm sure there will be pockets of resistance for some time to come. That happens here in the US from time to time too.
JM33: Although I do not agree with the anti-war people, it is interesting and enlightening to debate the issue...I like to learn. I like to try and have an open mind and at least try to understand their train of though. If nothing, it has strengthend my opinion. I'm not suffering at the result of this thread. I may not change their minds, and I doubt they're going to change mine...but it is much better to at least understand where they're coming from...it's healthy.
paxx: Time will answer all of the questions. No argument there. I suspect that several days ago, the population was still too afraid to speak up, and now they have a little bit more of a comfort zone. I have no doubt that it will be a vast majority of the population will be happy about this invasion...but again, only time will tell for sure. A country is large place and I'm sure there will be pockets of resistance for some time to come. That happens here in the US from time to time too.
JM33: Although I do not agree with the anti-war people, it is interesting and enlightening to debate the issue...I like to learn. I like to try and have an open mind and at least try to understand their train of though. If nothing, it has strengthend my opinion. I'm not suffering at the result of this thread. I may not change their minds, and I doubt they're going to change mine...but it is much better to at least understand where they're coming from...it's healthy.
craeonics
Reply #1546 Thursday, April 10, 2003 7:33 AM
Reply #1546 Thursday, April 10, 2003 7:33 AM
Uh oh, I'm losing credit!
It has nothing to do with rhetoric. So the Iraqi's are glad to be freed. But their captivators were Iraqi themselves. So that must mean that either not all Iraqi's are happy (the oppressing force sure wouldn't) or that there were mind games going on.
It has nothing to do with rhetoric. So the Iraqi's are glad to be freed. But their captivators were Iraqi themselves. So that must mean that either not all Iraqi's are happy (the oppressing force sure wouldn't) or that there were mind games going on.
@ crae....
moshi
Reply #1548 Thursday, April 10, 2003 8:13 AM
Reply #1548 Thursday, April 10, 2003 8:13 AM
i´m sure that most Iraqis are happy that Saddam´s rule is coming to an end. 
i´m not so sure that the Iraqis love the US now, our television also showed people that were threatening to kill Bush if he dares to visit Iraq
i have to agree with Orion that the war is only half-over.
one major opposition group is already speaking of civil war if there will be an US general installed. http://www.irna.com/en/head/030410131053.ehe.shtml
btw: did you know that Ahmed Chalabi (the Pentagon´s favorite) left Iraq in 1956 when he was 11 years old. that was before the Baath party took power. i wonder what backing this guy has in the population (probably none).
i´m not so sure that the Iraqis love the US now, our television also showed people that were threatening to kill Bush if he dares to visit Iraq
i have to agree with Orion that the war is only half-over.one major opposition group is already speaking of civil war if there will be an US general installed. http://www.irna.com/en/head/030410131053.ehe.shtml
btw: did you know that Ahmed Chalabi (the Pentagon´s favorite) left Iraq in 1956 when he was 11 years old. that was before the Baath party took power. i wonder what backing this guy has in the population (probably none).
Orion
Reply #1549 Thursday, April 10, 2003 8:23 AM
Reply #1549 Thursday, April 10, 2003 8:23 AM
You're right! rhetoric was not the correct term..."splitting hairs" or "picking pepper out of fly poop" would indeed fit much better. Pretty much that statement is a big "Duh". I guess I should have said "the Iraqi general population that is not part of the government or loyal to Sadam" instead of "Iraqi people" sorry...I won't let it happen again. 
DavidK
Reply #1550 Thursday, April 10, 2003 8:39 AM
Reply #1550 Thursday, April 10, 2003 8:39 AM
Baghdad is a city of 5 million people (or somewhere between 2 and 5 million depending on who's statistics you hear) and all the videos I saw of the happy Iraqis was from the same events and never looked like more than maybe several hundred people at the most. Anti-war demonstrations in even small cities in the US looked like twenty times more people in the street.
I'm sure there is great joy that Saddam is gone. It's obvious that the Ba'ath party is finished. I think it's also obvious that there is a sense of fear and mistrust in these people about what is to come. It will take a while to see how the plan is accepted and how Iraq's neighbors in the region react to it.
I don't see America pouring billions of dollars more into Iraq. Where is all this money coming from? We have an all-time record deficit already, plus record homelesness record unemployment, increasing poverty, deteriorating schools and one of the worst public health systems in the world. Add to that the decline in retail sales, declining wages and drastically reduced tax revenues due to the bad economy and Bush's trillion dollar tax cut. We may need to be liberated by a wealthy country too....
I'm sure there is great joy that Saddam is gone. It's obvious that the Ba'ath party is finished. I think it's also obvious that there is a sense of fear and mistrust in these people about what is to come. It will take a while to see how the plan is accepted and how Iraq's neighbors in the region react to it.
I don't see America pouring billions of dollars more into Iraq. Where is all this money coming from? We have an all-time record deficit already, plus record homelesness record unemployment, increasing poverty, deteriorating schools and one of the worst public health systems in the world. Add to that the decline in retail sales, declining wages and drastically reduced tax revenues due to the bad economy and Bush's trillion dollar tax cut. We may need to be liberated by a wealthy country too....
paxx
Reply #1551 Thursday, April 10, 2003 8:39 AM
Reply #1551 Thursday, April 10, 2003 8:39 AM
moshi, to be fair, I must say that SAIRI doesn't really care who will be in power. US general or anybody. Their objective has always been to make a revolution in Iraq and create an Islamic (shia) state in Iraq, similar to the one in Iran.
BTW: if this happens, everybody will regret the good old Saddam days.
BTW: if this happens, everybody will regret the good old Saddam days.
moshi
Reply #1552 Thursday, April 10, 2003 8:54 AM
Reply #1552 Thursday, April 10, 2003 8:54 AM
paxx: i think that was the main reason why Saddam was allowed to slaughter the opposition after the last Gulf war
they seems to be the strongest opposition party though http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1881381.stm
they seems to be the strongest opposition party though http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1881381.stm
joetheblow
Reply #1553 Thursday, April 10, 2003 1:53 PM
Well I think that those who were chearing can't be accounted for as to say they want an American presence there. If anyone knows about oppression of oppressed people, if there is a time where they can release, they'll do it. All that US/UK/AU love could have been more of a 'thank God we can express something'. I am sure that they are very glad Saddam is gone. that does not mean that they want the forces to stay too long. there is allot of mistrust there. 6 months later they wonder why they are still here and that will give extremists power (along with one liners "America is Evil" and using truths to make lies and other half cooked logic).
Then you got other who want to 'help' thier county men y getting rid of the westerners... while putting themselves in power.
As long as the US understands that the best way to keep calm in Iraq is to have help from the people in the communities.
Cops get criminals... but it is easier when the community supports them. Less 'accedints' happen that way.
Any body watch the Simpsons?
Marge makes a empationed speach full of examples, and common reasoning about why they do not need a monorail in Springfield.
Every one agrees.
Then one guy stands up and says:
Monorails are cool!
The next guy says:
Lets build it! Lets take Springfield into the future!
Reply #1553 Thursday, April 10, 2003 1:53 PM
Well I think that those who were chearing can't be accounted for as to say they want an American presence there. If anyone knows about oppression of oppressed people, if there is a time where they can release, they'll do it. All that US/UK/AU love could have been more of a 'thank God we can express something'. I am sure that they are very glad Saddam is gone. that does not mean that they want the forces to stay too long. there is allot of mistrust there. 6 months later they wonder why they are still here and that will give extremists power (along with one liners "America is Evil" and using truths to make lies and other half cooked logic).
Then you got other who want to 'help' thier county men y getting rid of the westerners... while putting themselves in power.
As long as the US understands that the best way to keep calm in Iraq is to have help from the people in the communities.
Cops get criminals... but it is easier when the community supports them. Less 'accedints' happen that way.
Any body watch the Simpsons?
Marge makes a empationed speach full of examples, and common reasoning about why they do not need a monorail in Springfield.
Every one agrees.
Then one guy stands up and says:
Monorails are cool!
The next guy says:
Lets build it! Lets take Springfield into the future!
DarkMist
Reply #1554 Thursday, April 10, 2003 7:54 PM
Reply #1554 Thursday, April 10, 2003 7:54 PM
In house help http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism/faq.htm 
joetheblow
Reply #1555 Friday, April 11, 2003 1:34 AM
Reply #1555 Friday, April 11, 2003 1:34 AM
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crimpol/police/index.html
bakerstreet
Reply #1556 Friday, April 11, 2003 1:39 AM
Reply #1556 Friday, April 11, 2003 1:39 AM
Hrm. Perhaps someone here is more 'in-the-know' than I, but this story confuses me:
http://web.mid-day.com/news/world/2003/april/49683.htm
It seems we have found a site in Iraq that has radioactivity 'off the scale' of the detectors that the Marines carry, and that would be deadly if people came in contact with it for a reasonable amount of time. I know that many here don't like Rupert's news, but their link has more detail:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.html
What confuses me is the hesitation to call this a 'smoking gun'. Under what circumstances could Saddam Hussein be allowed to posess material so radioactive that it is "too deadly for human contact"?
How easy would it be to silently contaminate an area with this stuff if the means were there to transport it? With all the talk of a 'dirty bomb' in the last couple of years, material like this is far beyond tolerance, isn't it? I'm not sure why it has to explode to be a WMD, when we have already been told of numerous ways material like this could be quietly hidden near a public area or spread there to cause illness or death. Troubling.
http://web.mid-day.com/news/world/2003/april/49683.htm
It seems we have found a site in Iraq that has radioactivity 'off the scale' of the detectors that the Marines carry, and that would be deadly if people came in contact with it for a reasonable amount of time. I know that many here don't like Rupert's news, but their link has more detail:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.html
What confuses me is the hesitation to call this a 'smoking gun'. Under what circumstances could Saddam Hussein be allowed to posess material so radioactive that it is "too deadly for human contact"?
How easy would it be to silently contaminate an area with this stuff if the means were there to transport it? With all the talk of a 'dirty bomb' in the last couple of years, material like this is far beyond tolerance, isn't it? I'm not sure why it has to explode to be a WMD, when we have already been told of numerous ways material like this could be quietly hidden near a public area or spread there to cause illness or death. Troubling.
bakerstreet
Reply #1557 Friday, April 11, 2003 1:46 AM
Reply #1557 Friday, April 11, 2003 1:46 AM
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.html
maybe that one will work...
maybe that one will work...
Thibaud
Reply #1558 Friday, April 11, 2003 2:23 AM
Reply #1558 Friday, April 11, 2003 2:23 AM
backerstreet,
maybe you'll get the answer there : http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030410_2002.html
maybe you'll get the answer there : http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030410_2002.html
bakerstreet
Reply #1559 Friday, April 11, 2003 2:39 AM
Reply #1559 Friday, April 11, 2003 2:39 AM
Thibaud: hrm, doesn't seem to jive with the fact that they detected the radiation hundreds of yards away and that the facility itself was to hot to safely move around in. Unless, I suppose, it was sabotaged by Iraqis on their way out.
It still seems insane to me that "Tuwaitha contains 1.8 tons of low-grade enriched uranium and several tons of natural and depleted uranium." and that, other than twice-a-year inspections, they were allowed to police themselves. I'm not sure how the IAEA seals could prevent the material from being diverted as is stated in the article... it seems like the broken seals would just show that it *had been* diverted, after the fact. Trusting folks, the UN.
Anyway, isn't it backward to allow him to keep enriched Uranium and prevent him from getting the machinery to further enrich it? Seems like without the radioactive material he'd be stuck. Odd that technical manufacturing know-how is harder to come by than uranium.
Thanks for the link. Will be interesting to see what comes of it.
It still seems insane to me that "Tuwaitha contains 1.8 tons of low-grade enriched uranium and several tons of natural and depleted uranium." and that, other than twice-a-year inspections, they were allowed to police themselves. I'm not sure how the IAEA seals could prevent the material from being diverted as is stated in the article... it seems like the broken seals would just show that it *had been* diverted, after the fact. Trusting folks, the UN.
Anyway, isn't it backward to allow him to keep enriched Uranium and prevent him from getting the machinery to further enrich it? Seems like without the radioactive material he'd be stuck. Odd that technical manufacturing know-how is harder to come by than uranium.
Thanks for the link. Will be interesting to see what comes of it.
bakerstreet
Reply #1560 Friday, April 11, 2003 2:44 AM
Reply #1560 Friday, April 11, 2003 2:44 AM
The line "The Iraqis were allowed to keep the material because it was unfit for weapons use without costly and time-consuming enrichment." really creeps me out.
It sounds as if highly radioactive material is harmless unless it can be made to explode... or that "costly and time-consuming enrichment" would be something that would dissuade someone like Saddam Hussein.
It sounds as if highly radioactive material is harmless unless it can be made to explode... or that "costly and time-consuming enrichment" would be something that would dissuade someone like Saddam Hussein.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 78 of 85 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1541 Thursday, April 10, 2003 5:44 AM