Heh, first of all, the vast majority of weapons, military technology and consultants Iraqis have had are from Russia, this is no secret at all.

Just look what kind of weapons their army is using.

Besides, imo Russia is in no position to judge USA,

But because USA has wanted to improve its relationship with Russia, it has not done much anything to condemn it.

Along with the Islamic rhetoric and politics it is the strategic importance of Chechnya itself which compels various actors like the USA, NATO nations and other countries to take an active interest in the Chechnya imbroglio notwithstanding the much touted human rights violations by Russians in Chechnya. The strategic importance of Chechnya mainly relates to its location in North Caucasus and the part it plays in the oil pipeline politics. It is quite evident that the USA follows a policy of moving the Caspian oil pipelines away from both Russia and Iran to reduce Russia's influence in Central Asia and wherever else possible.

Quote

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

This "War on Iraq is only because of oil and nothing else" has become such a mantra and easy answer that it needs some criticism.

BBC has various essays on the war and one of them is "the war is not about "blood for oil" " by oil expert Jerry Taylor from the right-of-centre Cato Institute in Washington.
It's located here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/midd.../transcript.stm

Here's the  BBC essays page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2861721.stm


Personally i think this war is not about oil, it's about security; Saddam is not a serious threat now, but he can be (and probably will be) threat to US in the future unless stopped.

This is what Colin Powell and others were saying on World Economic Forum meeting at Davos on last january. Here's a email about davos meeting from Pulizer winner and science journalist Laurie Garrett for her friends which spilled on internet. Very, very, very interesting reading about state of the world.

The best part regarding the war on Iraq:

Quote

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."

( This email is confirmed to be real. You can read analysis about it and the spill from here:
http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.p...article&sid=938 )

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.. I recommend links posted by Secret Chief on page five (Thanks Chief! Excellent info.  ), earlier posted Mideastweb.org Iraq-page and also other pages on http://www.mideastweb.org .

There are likely other reasons for this war too, but security is IMHO most important.

Quote

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

Entering a country for highly questionable reasons and plunging it into a war which has taken quite a bit of civilian casualities and may take much more in the days ahead, is, at the very least, not nice.

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.

Quote

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 your reply JohnV 

Neo Neko can't answer. In the other hand he have a lot of work, his case is hard to defend. 

Let me ask the question differently, do you think that the US army would be in Iraq if there was no more oil ?

I know bluewer than blue (and others) have already answered, but the right to a fair trail is the most basic human right for EVERYONE.

If people are guilty of crimes, if they are murderers etc etc, then they should be found guilty.

More importantly, if they are not guilty, then they must be tried, and found innocent.

It is ridiculous and immoral to keep someone detained without trial - all but the most barbarous and corrupt regimes in the world accept this.

The treatment of POWs by Iraq is horrific and terrible and illegal and sickening. Being shown on TV is the least of their worries. But the tone of the outcry from the USA was pathetic - "you can't show them on TV because it's against the Geneva convention" - there are different phrases for this in every nation in the world. It's the Donkey calling the Rabit "long ears".

The USA has a right to be angry about miss-treatment of POWs, and the POWs themselves are heros. But the USA must stop chastising other countries for breaking international agreements which the USA itself ignores at will. The answer, of course, is not for the USA to stop opposing what other countries are doing wrong, but to put right their own conduct immediately.

Some resources about what weapons Iraq has, espessialy what they got in post-soviet period?

On weapon sells:
http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/feataw...ehali_194_p.htm

Quote

Neo Neko can't answer. In the other hand he have a lot of work, his case is hard to defend. 

Let me ask the question differently, do you think that the US army would be in Iraq if there was no more oil ?

God don't be so ignorant.

I can reply all I want. And my position is as easy to defend as yours.

I am sure you are one of the many who would like to blame America completely for Saddam and Iraq's rise to power.

Some claimed we appointed Saddam as the leader of Iraq. That is complete and utter BS.

If that were the case then why are they fighting us with Russian made rifles and munitions and not the supposed copious ammounts of weapons we gave them?

And while I will not deny America had a role in it John's post provides an interesting point that even without America Iraq still would have come into their current power.

Your country is an evil user of middle east or OPEC oil. Your country is just as much to blame as we are on that. Don't give me the "we are better because we use less" rhetoric. The fact that you contribute at all and then try to criticise at all is shamefull.

USA helped Saddam since 1958... A lot of dictators have taken advantage of the cold war...
Read also: http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/IraqLott.html

I know you have not given any sort of alternate explanations any creedence. Wouldn't it be possible that their noses and mouths were being covered to protect them from possible diseases US troops might have to which they have no immunity. The converse could also be true. The eye masks could also be explained similarly. I am not saying that they are the only explanations or even that they are the real explanations. But since they are explanations that don't fit your mould for us that they may have not been considdered.

Some perhaps. But not all. I do believe that what was allowed to be shot was filtered. But if what was in those pictures was so sinister then......
1. Why did the US let them out?
2. If the US was giving them out tell me why God why would they have given those?
I thought the US was striving to be a better more evil opresser. How could we slip up and make such a bone-headed move? Not..........

Photographs are nice and all. I have some nice doctored photographs of supposed naked celebrities perhaps I could intrest you in.
Photographic evidence? Perhaps. But of what??

Dude! ROTFLMAO!!! That is kinda funny. He was an enemy combatant sure. But the thing to keep in mind was that he is also a US citizen. Now if they had done that to an Afgani taliban combattant then you would have something. What we might want to be more concerned about is why he got off so light for doing the same thing with a little treason on top.

Well again you show some ignorance and lack of understanding on this issue. They are captured enemy combatants in what is being called a war. In essence POWs. I would agree that they should not be kept there indefinatly. But don't try to color us evil for doing what has been done countless times in war throughout history and even in recent history by your people and people you approve of. That is hypocritical

I think the thing you are unfortunatly missing is that this is a percieved war. You generally do not find war criminals being tried for war crimes in the middle of the war

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. They could make another decision, but it was their free will to leave law and regard to the lives of other people. So stop crying because of bunch of creatures who deserve nothing better but the same fate they prepared for the others...

Quote

USA helped Saddam since 1958... A lot of dictators have taken advantage of the cold war...
Read also: http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/IraqLott.html

Do you have any impartial source for this? It's very easy to say that "CIA put Saddam in power", "CIA gave Saddam WMDs". It's just too simple, not very believable. Usually this kind of "information" is greatly exaggerated and simplified, simply put, propaganda. The impartial sources I have read imply that Saddam put himself into power, not any CIA... although it's likely that CIA has suppoerted him. But there are many levels of support...

According to Amnesty International (visit the link I included above) the problem is that those "enemy combatants" are NOT considered POWs

I have to admit it, this is not really a neutral source. Anyway, I v read and hear this information several times, so I'm quite sure about it.

Also it would be hard in US law system to really find them guilty of terrorism. The prisoners are members of the Al-Qaida terrorist organization and Talibans who support Al-Qaida and were guilty of very cruel things in Afganistan, so obviously it's not so easy for USA so just let those guys walk away, which would happen in any other case besides this.
If these guys were released and then would attack for example an airplane full of US and european people, I'm sure many would scream why did USA let them go...

Why should Al-Qaida members walk freely among us?

The International Committee of the Red Cross, who are the authoritative interpreters of the Geneva Conventions, have said that the prisoners are presumed to be POWs until a 'competent tribunal' rules them otherwise

I really don't understand why you say that it would be hard for the US law system to find them guilty of terrorism. If there isn't a law about those people, then they have been kept illegally. But I really want you to clarify this, cause I'm not sure what do you mean.

Still, nobody ever asked for the releasing of these people, unless of course they are innocent, something which can be proved only through a trial. What I do ask for though is for a civilized treatment..and it seems that I'm not the only one who acknowledges that regardless of their crimes, these people have every right to be treated as any other prisoner.

Why should Al-Qaida members walk freely among us?

So it's ok, to release "innocent" Al-Qaida members.. ok.. Because that is what would happen if these guys were allowed to go to court. There wouldn't be enough evidence that these guys are "guilty of terrorism", and they would most probably walk out free.

I agree that they should be treated properly. What I've read, their situation is better now than in the beginning.

NeoNeko said that they are POWs...if they are then they have denied them some of their rights as Amnesty International states. I'm quoting the following from AI's thesis:

Quote

The International Committee of the Red Cross, who are the authoritative interpreters of the Geneva Conventions, have said that the prisoners are presumed to be POWs until a 'competent tribunal' rules them otherwise

You're in a slippery slope when you give some people special treatment just because of what some of their friends have done and you can't prove anything on them personally. Next thing you know there will be discrimination agains people form their country, religion, race etc... This behaviour from the state doesn't belong in any just society. Period. Do you have any problems with that?

So it's ok for a terrorist supporter (or terrorist) to walk freely as long as you can't prove exactly what the person has done decisively in a court of law? You'd gladly go to the same airplane with this kind of person?

Let me see if I understand correctly...these guys aren't allowed (or better say, "they" don't allow them) to go to court, because there isn't enough evidence against them? How is this possible...aren't there international and domestic laws about terrorism? Don't those apply for them?

Next time you drive by a U.S. military cemetery in Europe, take a good look. Those could be the last Americans who will die for Europe's freedom.

America is just like Germany in 1933. "The people" have no say in this. W seized power illegally and now he is using that power to focus on the "agenda" he had from the beginning: arrogantly enforce "Americanism" around the globe. September 11th was a really good "excuse" for him to do this.

Every Bush press conference and speech is filled with lies. He repeats his deceitful propaganda about why Iraq needs to be attacked. He convinces "normal Americans" that his actions are justifiable for a better world. He tricks Americans into supporting an attack on Iraq by suggesting that September 11th was connected to Iraq and that this war prevent terrorisms. Republicans call people "unpatriotic" if they suggested terrorism is the result of our failed policies. Americans refuse to see that our foreign policy breeds the people who want to kill us. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11, Hussein isn't a religious extremist. Attacking Iraq doesn't do anything to fight terrorism, as W claims. Once again, it is wrong-headed policy that will breed MORE terrorism.....

I could spend pages restating the things you have already read about the lies and the propaganda. That's not my point. My point is that I have many depressed and angry friends; and I want to say "No. You are not alone. We are all equally helpless here." We are helpless to do anything about this war.

Much more than living in a police state, where the police can arrest just anybody and put them in prison indefinately without any grounds.

Let me guess,  here is your primary source for other completely objective news. 

Or try this for complete lies..

As always, I think the truth is somewhere between...