Iraq

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
Honestally how do you live like that? I am aware that there is a good cahnce if it all kicked off i would die early i live near a very tactical sire (sellefeild) which would be a prime target many of my mates work there.

I live with it - I'm not going to chane what I do. Everyone thought I was crazy for going to Liberty State Park in Jersey City for 4th of July. It's across the river from where the Twin Towers once stood and there were thousands of people there. Anything could have happened. I've also been to Ellis Island and the Statue fo Liberty 3 or 4 times since then. If something happens - something happens. I was in Times Square for the 2000 celebration and if I had someone to go with this year - I would have.

Do you really think the threat is that great because i allways saw 9/11 as a one off

You don't think they have plans for other things? You really can't be serious. The Eiffel Tower was also on their list opf targets - as were many other European landmarks. Tons of documents and diagrams of many US attractions and landmarks were found in the Al Qaeda terrorist camps in Afganistan. Al Qaeda currently has terrorist camps in northern Iraq and are causing problems with the Kurds. Osama Bin Ladin has declared he wants to take down the west and America in particular. There are Islamic religious leaders in Saudi Arabia, Iran and all throughout the Middle East telling students that it is honorable to kill Americans and Jews and take up "Jihad" against the west and the "infidels".

Maybe once England gets attacked you'll see that it's not such an isolated thing. England will get attacked at one point - they're already planning on things as demonstrated by the Ricin incident. I'm not wishing that England or any other country gets attacked - but something is bound to get through at some point.

[jerseydevil]

I am aware that there is a good cahnce if it all kicked off i would die early i live near a very tactical sire (sellefeild) which would be a prime target many of my mates work there.

I was wondering in what resepect this is tactical. If it's military - then it's really not on their list (or at least very doubtful). That would be the old Cold War belief - but the rules are different now. They want civilian casualities and targets which will destroy the economy. They want soft targets - such as nightclubs, stores, theaters, malls - things that aren't heavily guarded. The Twin Towers was a symbol that they attacked. All indications say that the Pentagon wasn't even their initial target, the White House was. Luckily the White House is covered in trees. Flight controllers following the plane said that it was on a direct course for the White House - after the plane overflew the White House the terrorists must have realised they had passed by it, circled around and then started heading for the Pentagon instead. The flight that crashed in Pennsylvania is believed to have been targeted for the Capitol Building.

[Comic Book Guy]

I wouldn't exactly call the deaths of 2000+ people small potatoes Jerseydevil, and thats not counting non-IRA terror attacks.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Comic Book Guy
I wouldn't exactly call the deaths of 2000+ people small potatoes Jerseydevil, and thats not counting non-IRA terror attacks.

Well there was never a terrorist attack that killed 3000, like 9/11 or even 2000 inside of 2 hours in the world. How long has the IRA fight be going on for the freedom of Ireland from England? I'm Irish - I don't necessarily care too much about whether Ireland is part of England or not - but why is Ireland so important to England. What financial or military benefits does it bring to England? Ireland never chose to become part of Great Britain - it was conquered and annexed.

[The Lady of Ithilien]

The Israelis interviewed (you have to scroll down past the headlines to read the interview) an Iraqi man in Amman last week who claimed to have been one of Saddam's closest security guard, and he says the weapons are under the streets of Baghdad and in dunes near Tikrit. Now, it would be easy to discount that -- if it hadn't been published at a time when UN inspectors are in Iraq and Iraq is supposedly cooperating, and it could be easily confirmed or discounted very quickly.

I just checked the online news, and it's the same old, same old: the inspectors are determined to keep searching for months. Not one word about this remarkable story. Given what's at stake, how could anyone ignore it?

Why aren't the journalists asking about it?

Why are the UN inspectors still talking about looking for months, instead of addressing this potentially deadlock-breaking claim?

I just don't understand it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Lady of Ithilien
The Israelis interviewed (you have to scroll down past the headlines to read the interview) an Iraqi man in Amman last week who claimed to have been one of Saddam's closest security guard, and he says the weapons are under the streets of Baghdad and in dunes near Tikrit. Now, it would be easy to discount that -- if it hadn't been published at a time when UN inspectors are in Iraq and Iraq is supposedly cooperating, and it could be easily confirmed or discounted very quickly.

I just checked the online news, and it's the same old, same old: the inspectors are determined to keep searching for months. Not one word about this remarkable story. Given what's at stake, how could anyone ignore it?

Why aren't the journalists asking about it?

Why are the UN inspectors still talking about looking for months, instead of addressing this potentially deadlock-breaking claim?

I just don't understand it.

Because the rest of the world wants to say - "See nothing was found. We looked and looked." Then everyone can go about there business and Iraq will be happy - because then they can go on with their weapons program. France and Russia can go on with their relationship with Iraq. And everyone else in the world can bury their head in the sand and then when Iraq decides to hold the middle East hostage in the next 3 years - they can say, "Why didn't the US do something before it got to this point?".

[Coney]

I think 'Lady is asking why aren't the weapons inspectors doing something when a man is providing (potential) direct evidence.

Three words - "popular" "opinion" "war".....fill in the gaps

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
I think 'Lady is asking why aren't the weapons inspectors doing something when a man is providing (potential) direct evidence.

Three words - "popular" "opinion" "war".....fill in the gaps

The weapons inspectors don't even have to find anything for Iraq to be in material breach. All that needs to happen is for Iraq to not cooperate. People seem to think that they actually have to find something.

I wonder if the weapons inspectors really want to catch him in a lie. Blix has been taking a hard line lately - but only because the US has been putting on so much pressure. That's the only reason why the inspectors are in there and it's the only reason why Arab countries are now talking about offering Saddam Hussein exile. It's also the only reason why Iraq opened up talks today with Kuwait and Jordan regarding Kuwaiti and Jordanian prisoners that Iraq captured during the Gulf War (for some reason Iraq lost track of them).

But I think that the UN's goal is to avoid war - regardless of how Iraq acts. If they could turn their backs on the situation - they'd be more than happy to - just like they did for the past 4 years. Currently though the UN has the US breathing down it's neck - and they're just hoping that if they can stall till March - that we'll lay off after that. Then the UN can go back to being the same useless organisation it has been.

[Coney]

Why aren't the weapons inspectors doing something when a man is providing (potential) direct evidence.?

The weapons inspectors don't even have to find anything for Iraq to be in material breach.

Yes but direct evidence is the goal surely?.......indirect evidence (re JD's post) would cause even further justification for the anti-war protestors.

Arab countries are now talking about offering Saddam Hussein exile.

(not the whole quote I know). Something in the media worried me the other day.........why did America offer Iraqi' scientists sanctuary (amnesty) and not all the Iraqi' people, proffesional or not, that oppose Saddam's regime? .

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Why aren't the weapons inspectors doing something when a man is providing (potential) direct evidence.?


Yes but direct evidence is the goal surely?.......indirect evidence (re JD's post) would cause even further justification for the anti-war protestors.

The weapon's inspectors all along have been saying that finding a smoking gun is almost nill.

Something in the media worried me the other day.........why did America offer Iraqi' scientists sanctuary (amnesty) and not all the Iraqi' people, proffesional or not, that oppose Saddam's regime? .

The UNITED NATIONS wanted us to give the scientists and their families amnesty if they are taken out of Iraq for questioning. For a long time we wouldn't agree to that. I actually haven't heard where we've changed our minds yet. I think we should give them amnesty though. If they're going to come out of Iraq, risk their lives and give us information - I don't think we should send them back where they're almost guaranteed of being executed.

[Coney]

The weapon's inspectors all along have been saying that finding a smoking gun is almost nill.

So, if WMD are actually found it is considered not to be evidence?

That is news to me.........I thought that the weapons inspectors were looking for evidence of WMD along with co-operation, if not then why were the WI's sent there first?, let me emphasise this... there is a man on the world stage saying that he knows the whereabouts of weapons that contradict the past agreements and the inspectors are doing nothing to investigate this why not?.....or am I wrong?

The UNITED NATIONS wanted us to give the scientists and their families amnesty if they are taken out of Iraq for questioning.

Indeed housed in America.........(am I the only one getting shades of WW2 here?)

I don't think we should send them back where they're almost guaranteed of being executed.

Very honorable...and what is to become of the rest of the people that disagree with the current regime in Iraq?......cream off the top JD.......ignore the milk

[Draken]

Originally posted by Coney
Very honorable...and what is to become of the rest of the people that disagree with the current regime in Iraq?......cream off the top JD.......ignore the milk

Coney, that is disgraceful. I know you've been posting on this board for quite a while, but that's no excuse for not spelling "honourable" properly!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
So, if WMD are actually found it is considered not to be evidence?

it would be considered evidence - I just said that the inspectors DON'T actually HAVE to find anything for Saddam Hussein to be in material breach.

That is news to me.........I thought that the weapons inspectors were looking for evidence of WMD along with co-operation, if not then why were the WI's sent there first?, let me emphasise this... there is a man on the world stage saying that he knows the whereabouts of weapons that contradict the past agreements and the inspectors are doing nothing to investigate this why not?.....or am I wrong?

Like I said above - I don't think the weapons inspectors OR the UN wants to find anything. They just want everything to go on the way it has for the past 4 years with their heads stuck in the ground. If they can stall till the end of March - it'll be less likely that we'll launch an attack.

Indeed housed in America.........(am I the only one getting shades of WW2 here?)

Hey - nothing really stopping the Britain housing them I supposed. Iniitially - as I said - we weren;t going to give them asylum - but the UNITED NATIONS has been requesting that we do. Talk to the UN if you don't like it.

Very honorable...and what is to become of the rest of the people that disagree with the current regime in Iraq?......cream off the top JD.......ignore the milk

We're supposed to evacuate the whole country? Who is going to determine who is for Saddam and who is against? Anyway - according to Saddam Hussein 100% of IRAQIS love him. He did get 100% of the vote don't forget too.

[Coney]

Originally posted by Draken
Coney, that is disgraceful. I know you've been posting on this board for quite a while, but that's no excuse for not spelling "honourable" properly!

Apologise..........honourable it is

JD......hahahahahahaha.............

Answer 'Ladies quesion*sigh*

[jerseydevil]

There was also this which I posted on the Iraq Poster thread. In 2001 there is proof that Iraq was illigally bringing in sanctioned equipment. The inspectors even know about it and that Iraw has at least used some of the supplies.

NEW DELHI - An obscure Indian trading company has provided the first clear evidence that Iraq obtained materials over the last four years to produce or deliver weapons of mass destruction.

The company, NEC Engineering Private Ltd., used phony customs declarations and other false documents, as well as front companies in three countries, to export 10 consignments of raw materials and equipment that Saddam Hussein's regime could use to produce chemical weapons and propellants for long-range missiles, according to Indian court records.

The shipments, valued at nearly $800,000, took place between September 1998 and February 2001. The exports - highly specialized supplies such as atomized aluminum powder and titanium centrifugal pumps - ostensibly went to Jordan and Dubai. But they subsequently were traced to Iraq's Fallujah II chlorine plant and a rocket fuel production facility at Al Mamoun, according to US and British intelligence reports.

The NEC case marks the illicit Iraqi procurement scheme traced to a specific company since December 1998, when UN inspectors were forced to leave Baghdad, the Iraqi capital. Iraq did not identify the Indian company as a supplier in the 12,000 page weapons declaracton it handed to the Security Council last month. The case may not provide the sort of definitive evidence the international community has said is needed to justify action against Iraq, but it bolsters White House claims that Saddam has covertly continued to attempts to build illegal weapons.

Washington has imposed sanctions against the former head of NEC, who allegedly led a technical team to Fallujah II in April 1999 to help install equipment that can be used to produce chemical agents. India has suspended NEC's export license, revoked passports of senior company officials and raided company offices and homes. NEC's general manager, who was jailed for four months last fall, has detailed the elaborate scheme to investigators. Further criminal charges are expected.

United Nations weapons inspectors have confirmed that Iraq has used at least some of the supplies.
Los Angeles Times - January 18, 2003

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Apologise..........honourable it is

JD......hahahahahahaha.............

Answer 'Ladies quesion*sigh*

I've answered it - you just don't like my answer.

Also - the journalists may not be reporting it in order to give them time to figure out how to confirm this without tipping off Hussein. If it is true - they had to get the weaponry under the streets without digging them up. So they probably have a way of getting them out if they need to.

[Coney]

*still waiting a comprehensive answer*

[katya]

a bunch of people from my area left today. For training I guess. Old guys too, like my friend's dad. That makes this seem a lot closer to home doesn't it? Heehee i got mad at Bush and threw my remote at the TV. I kind of thought I killed it but it's OK now. Good stress reliever.

[Coney]

they had to get the weaponry under the streets without digging them up. So they probably have a way of getting them out if they need to.

The point is that there is a man publically saying that the WMD are there..........yet the US and the UN are doing NOTHING about it.....does nobody else read the news???

"why"

[The Lady of Ithilien]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Because the rest of the world wants to say - "See nothing was found. We looked and looked." Then everyone can go about there business and Iraq will be happy - because then they can go on with their weapons program. France and Russia can go on with their relationship with Iraq. And everyone else in the world can bury their head in the sand and then when Iraq decides to hold the middle East hostage in the next 3 years - they can say, "Why didn't the US do something before it got to this point?".

You know, the reality finally sunk in today. Sure, there's all this other self-interested stuff going on with Russia and the other countries who are kicking up a fuss, but you know, I think what it really boils down to is this:

-- On this occasion, the use of nuclear and other MD weapons is a real possibility. No inevitability, but a possibility.

-- Most of the "pacifists" in the West and elsewhere know Saddam's bad and has to be stopped, but for the above reason they don't want to be the first ones to draw, so to speak, just in case it escalates into a WMD exchange. It wouldn't be "moral." No, they want him to use WMD first (though for him it would not be the first time, at least as far as chemicals go -- just ask the Kurds), and then they'll turn into the most rabid "bomb 'em back to the Stone Age" mouth-foamers the world has ever seen. But they just don't have the guts to do anything until more thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands or even more civilians are killed and maimed.

And, baby, that ain't moral. That's lower than Saddam, even. But that's why they're ignoring this guy instead of giving it the tough coverage that would, through public opinion, force the UN inspectors in Baghdad to take a look under the main streets, etc.