Quote

Down to bomb for it. You gotta ruin the country first, so they will be busy recovering it before they'll question price and value of brought changes.

Interesting question: What is Russia's responsibility in Baghdad's civilian casualties, if (like it has been said today) it will be proven that Russian companies have been selling GPS jammers (and weapons) to Iraqis which use those in Baghdad.

It's funny to read these opinions, that just because USA was at some point supporting (there are many levels of support) Iraq or even Osama bin Laden, that somehow USA itself is responsible about everything what Saddam or Osama have done. This is very naive and way too simplistic thinking imo.

Needless to say, Tomahawks and other satellite guided weapons may considerably miss their military targets in Baghdad and hit civilian homes.

I don't doubt that USA wouldn't try to hit as precicely to military targets as possible, because hitting civilian targets will only give them lots of negative publicity.

And what never *ceases* to surprise me is that you and everyone else feel fit to criticize everything but not do anything about it.

Saddam had sanctions and resolutions against him that were endorsed by your people. He violated them.

Don't speak about hypocrasy. There is more than enough to go around.

LOL. Would it surprise you to know that for quite some time the Afgani prisoners in Guantanimo had significantly better living conditions than their American jailers? That's right. The prisoners had showers, running water, and better shelter than the Americans who were living in tents without showers or running water and many other niceties afforded the prisoners.

Oh and those publications who claimed that conditions there violated the Geneva conventions are incapable of proving it. Not because they have not been given ample opportunity.

Everything that article shows has alternate explanations.

Not that you would investigate that or even question what the article puts forth since again it is one of those cut and paste arguments that you see as somehow proving your position. Funny thing is, it does not.

I have a question for you. What the hell does this have to do with Iraq and why you believe there should be no war there? Nothing.

Then there's America's most famous "enemy combatant" Taliban Johnny, aka John Walker Lindh. Immediately after being captured in the brutal prison rebellion at Mazar-e-Sharif, the frail American jihadist was interviewed by war zone aficionado Robert Young Pelton (who was staying at Dostum's compound at the time). According to an account in the New Yorker, after asking his Special Forces buddies to wait to "shoot him" until he was done, Pelton interrogated the wounded Lindh under the gun of U.S. military personnel. Later the military stripped him naked, taped him to a gurney and threw him in the back of a transport plane back to the U.S. Pelton's interview ran on CNN and was used to convict Lindh for conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals and to provide material support to a terrorist organization. He is currently serving a 20-year sentence.

There is little question that Iraq was importing restricted items and materials including weapons from countries like France, Russia, and China. That's right. America did give Iraq weapons decades ago. But who is giving them weapons and related items today?

There is also no question that if Saddam and Iraq failed to comply with the wishes of the UN that it would mean the end of Saddam's rule in Iraq. That is the consequence the UN gave Iraq.

         13.     Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

They gave their word on this and have gone back on it.

It may not be new and fresh information. But it was pertinant then and I have little question as to its rellivance today.

“This document is clearly presented to the British public as a product of British intelligence and it is clearly nothing of the kind,” Dan Plesch, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, said. “This appears to be obsolete academic analysis dressed up and presented as the best MI6 and our international partners can produce on Saddam.”

What do you define as new? Even if it is years old unless it is older than 12 years or so it is "new". If Iraq had any of this stuff within the last 12 years they were in violation of the UN's wishes. It does not have to be a photo fresh off the sattelite 5 min ago to be new or pertinant.

As to the proof you never saw..... If it is of a sensitive nature and could greatly influence the outcome of these opperations were they to be public ATM would your government release them if they were in the same position?

I got news for you. The UN is decieved and lied to on a daily basis by it's members let alone the US. And it has never changed anything before. The UN as a general rule does not question these deceptions and lies.

Whether or not you believe what has been given as Americas official reasons. As a member of a nation that is a member of the UN, you gave your official word that you would do this in light of Iraq's violations. And I guess I have news for you, Iraq is in violation. We can all agree on that. So where are you? Why are you not here to over see things?

Quote

Interesting question: What is Russia's responsibility in Baghdad's civilian casualties, if (like it has been said today) it will be proven that Russian companies have been selling GPS jammers (and weapons) to Iraqis which use those in Baghdad.

Lemme quote your words:

Quote

It's funny to read these opinions, that just because USA was at some point supporting (there are many levels of support) Iraq or even Osama bin Laden, that somehow USA itself is responsible about everything what Saddam or Osama have done. This is very naive and way too simplistic thinking imo.

First lets wait for prooves it's not FUD. It's not the first attempt. BTW, if anyone cares, views from opposite camp:
http://www.gazeta.ru/print/2003/03/24/USbl...lamescomb.shtml
http://www.translate.ru/url/tran_url.asp?l...1&psubmit2.y=11
http://www.translate.ru/url/tran_url.asp?l...0&psubmit2.y=10

Secondly are defencive means causing civilian casualties or missiles they are used against?
It would be naive to think they won't defend themselves by all the means they can use.

Quote

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE US ARMY WOULD BE IN IRAQ IF THERE WASN’T OIL?

Iraq would be totally different place if there wasn't oil. Oil is the thing which was able to  make Saddam's Iraq quite powerful country in the middle east (before the '91 Gulf war) and Saddam such a threat. Imo it's not possible to separate Iraq and oil like this, because everything affects everything. Iraq's geographical location beside the other oil countries (Kuwait,Saudi-Arabia,Iran,Qatar) is also a big factor. If Iraq had no oil, but it would otherwise threathen or attack its neighbor oil-states like Kuwait in '91, I think USA and UN would take actions against Iraq. Now we see the ending of the war which started in '91.

One thing is clear though. OPEC will try to keep the oil price steady, Iraq is OPEC member, so USA will not be stealing Iraq's oil.

Thank you for taking the trouble to correct my vocabulary problem. I confess that my english aren't that great, contrary to my greek. We can speak the latter any time you wish.

We've heard that before countless times. U.N. was doing something actually...he sent there inspectors in order to check the armory of Saddam, find any weapons of mass destruction (if there were any), destroy it and disarm him...plain and simple. The inspectors were very optimistic that the procedure was going well and that they just needed more time (oh yeah!...they had 12 years...I know the answer)...till that time no evidence at all that Saddam was capable of causing global havoc as Bush and Blair (among a few others) were trying to prove.

Even if Saddam violated those resolutions as you say, nobody "elected" US (or any other) as the police force of this planet, ordered to exterminate the malicious dictators everywhere.

(after all it has been proven that US is also responsible for the dominion of some of them). In case you don't know, there was dictatorship between 1967-1973 in Greece, supported by the US government. And no...none american president tried to "free" us from the regime.

Next thing you'll say is that those prisoners had the luxury of a pool for their spare time and a discoteque filled with babes in bikini.

But even if they lacked those, at least they had some showers with (guess what) running water, in order to do something when they hadn't "their eyes blacked out behind no-see goggles and their ears and noses tightly muffled". That "sense deprivation" is a totally necessary procedure in their attempt to "re-humanize" them again 

I think the photographs have been given away from US authorities, if I know well...

Isn't the photographed material enough for you?

But let's say that it's not...let's say that since those publications weren't able to prove it, that there haven't been any torturing at all. According to this logic, since UN inspectors didn't find anything to prove the existence of weapons of mass destruction, there just aren't any...you said so 

If you say so...who am I to question your judgement?!

I think it does have something to do with it. Firstly it shows that some (if not all) people behind this war are hypocrites as well.

Those that try to protect a captive's rights, haven't protected them themselves in a similar situation.

And since I have stopped posting entire articles, try reading this and especially this quote:

Quote

Then there's America's most famous "enemy combatant" Taliban Johnny, aka John Walker Lindh. Immediately after being captured in the brutal prison rebellion at Mazar-e-Sharif, the frail American jihadist was interviewed by war zone aficionado Robert Young Pelton (who was staying at Dostum's compound at the time). According to an account in the New Yorker, after asking his Special Forces buddies to wait to "shoot him" until he was done, Pelton interrogated the wounded Lindh under the gun of U.S. military personnel. Later the military stripped him naked, taped him to a gurney and threw him in the back of a transport plane back to the U.S. Pelton's interview ran on CNN and was used to convict Lindh for conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals and to provide material support to a terrorist organization. He is currently serving a 20-year sentence.

"POWs have to be protected against insult and public curiosity" <-- Yeah Right!!!

Quote

...decent treatment is only for those who handle in its terms and deserve it... Murderers and terrorists have no right for decent handling, because they left the decent mankind on their own accord.

I believe Iraq could say the same thing about U.S. soldiers.

IMHO you're definitely and completely wrong... How can you even compare this?! 

I'm not sure if it qualifies as 'murder' or 'terrorism', but the line is not hard, and you shouldn't be surprised if someone thinks the US actions quality for the terms.

Is the entirety of Europe supposed to only cheer to the US in whatever they do for the entire rest of human civilization?

It's a rather ludicrous assumption.

Maybe some remember WWII very well, especially how it is to be at war.

... but I personally don't believe that the U.S. would start something like this in Iraq just for fun of it... There must be serious reasons we maybe know not about today, but in the long run we would know it.

I guess you are the last person in the world who don't know yet the reason of this war...

Remember, many a time things are not so as they seem to be... And what seems to be so clear for everybody in the long run turns out to be quite different... There is always place for surprise. Always expect the unexpected; then you can easier accept the expected...
from TV series Kung Fu with David Carradine

Quote

I guess you are the last person in the world who don't know yet the reason of this war...

I always admired people like you who have no problems and know everything  Maybe you know your future, too...

Quote

Remember, many a time things are not so as they seem to be... And what seems to be so clear for everybody in the long run turns out to be quite different... There is always place for surprise. Always expect the unexpected; then you can easier accept the expected...
from TV series Kung Fu with David Carradine

I don't know what that quote by me had to do with this.

Of course Iraqis will use all the means they have. I hope Russian companies haven't provided them these means recently.

Could be that we will never find out. It's very hard to prove, and could be that USA doesn't want to risk their relations with Russia because of this and possible illegal weapon trades.

Quote

... are being imprisoned in Guantanamo have been exposed several times to the media in really inhuman conditions...

Democracy and decent treatment is only for those who handle in its terms and deserve it... Murderers and terrorists have no right for decent handling, because they left the decent mankind on their own accord.

Quote

I don't know how the war is being reported in the rest of the world, but in the UK...

For several long stretches each day, the TV schedule has been shifted to put BBC News 24 (a digital only TV channel) out on BBC1 (which every one can receive). It's already been described as a "24 hour TV war".

We have CNBC, MSNBC, CNN, FOX NEWS, and more all covering it and nothing else ATM 24 hours a day. It's not exactly what is being covered that is irksom. But how much and how many times it is being covered.

Jesus! Have you and the other negative commentators taken the time to look at the links supporting this US move?[...] and all I see here is bullshit ramblings from the un-enlightened.

You find it naive to think USA was in any way responsible for anything Saddam has done by supplying him with weapons/technology/consultants. Then bring up possible/indirect Russia responsibility for doing the same. I see contradiction here.
If it was irrelative, I might get it wrong.

[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']
Nomes de respeito

O documento de 12 mil páginas sobre suas armas que o Iraque forneceu às Nações Unidas no ano passado foi censurado antes de ser distribuído, a pedido dos Estados Unidos, segundo o jornal alemão Tageszeitung (saúde!), citado pelo jornalista Alexander Cockburn, que é provavelmente o último stalinista vivo mas um bom catador de hipocrisias. Cortados do documento: os nomes de todas as empresas, americanas, britânicas e alemãs na sua maioria, que venderam tecnologia de guerra nuclear, química e biológica ao Iraque antes de 1991, encorajadas pelos respectivos governos, apesar das proibições em tratados da época. Nomes de respeito como Honeywell, Rockwell, Hewlett Packard, DuPont, Eastman Kodak, Bechtel. Saddam Hussein foi apoiado e armado pelos americanos quando era a alternativa secular preferível à teocracia hostil do Irã e Donald Rumsfeld o admirava, embora ele não fosse melhor caráter do que é hoje.

As empresas que armaram ilegalmente o Iraque tiveram seus nomes apagados do registro. (Grandes empresas costumam ter sucesso em manter seus nomes fora dos prontuários. Há bons exemplos disso aqui na república da impunidade e da corrupção sem corruptores. Tente encontrar uma relação dos empresários que financiaram a Operação Bandeirantes de caça clandestina aos subversivos em São Paulo, durante a ditadura militar, por exemplo. Sem intenção de mexer desnecessariamente no lodo do passado, apenas como curiosidade. Ou uma lista das grandes empresas que se submeteram ao achaque semi-oficializado do P.C. Farias, durante o governo Collor, e também continuaram com nomes respeitáveis.) O governo americano já está escolhendo as companhias que vão reconstruir o Iraque depois da esperada devastação na guerra que começa. A maioria das favoritas na licitação, para um trabalho que custará estimados US$ 20 bilhões por ano por vários anos, é de amigas da Casa Branca, ou você esperava que escolhessem alguma francesa? Exemplo, conforme um artigo recente no Salon: a Kellogg Brown & Root, que pertence à Halliburton, que já foi dirigida pelo vice-presidente Dick Cheney, e que já lucrou bastante com o terror, construindo o campo de internamento de prisioneiros em Guantanamo, entre outras coisas. E a ubíqua Bechtel, uma firma de engenharia com sede na Califórnia cuja influência na política e na história americanas, desproporcional ao seu cuidadoso perfil baixo, vem de longe, e já alimentou várias teses conspiratórias sobre poder secreto. Esperando a vez de pegar, literalmente, as sobras depois que o complexo-industrial militar faturar o seu com a guerra está o complexo reconstrutor-militar americano, que confia em bastante destruição para não lhe faltar trabalho e lucro. Mas são todos nomes de respeito.
[/span]

Cut from the document: the names of all enterprises -- Americans, British and German in its majority -- that sold nuclear, chemical and biological warfare technology to Iraq before 1991, encouraged by its respective governments, despite all the prohibitions from treaties of that time. Names of respect like Honeywell, Rockwell, Hewlett Packard, DuPont, Eastman Kodak, Bechtel.

I guess you are the last person in the world who don't know yet the reason of this war...

I learned from American security and military speakers that, "We need to attack Iraq not to punish it for what it might have, but preemptively, as part of a global war. Iraq is just one piece of a campaign that will last years, taking out states, cleansing the planet."

Iraq is just one piece of a campaign that will last years, taking out states, cleansing the planet

Add to that thought of possibility to start democratizing process of Middle East by starting from Iraq after Saddam and his regime is removed, then this becomes really interesting