Iraq

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
If Al Qeada are actually being sheltered in northern Iraq......why are is North America waiting for justification for the invasion......didn't the US declare war on Al Qeada and it's allies already??

The problem is is that the rest of the world just wants to hide it's head in the sand. Even if we came out and said that they were there - you wouldn't believe it. I imagine that the only way you'd believe it is if the Iraqi's came and personally gave you a tour.

It seems amazing that your news media may be leaving this out.

If the US said that l Qaeda was now operating in Iraq and supported by Hussein - would you support military action?

There was also this ABC online article from September 27th.

Direct Links Detailed: Three Prisoners in N. Iraq Outline Links Between Al Qaeda and Iraq

The United States and the Kurdish government believe Ansar al-Islam is directly linked to al Qaeda, and is part of a larger relationship between Saddam's regime and Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization.

According to this prisoner, there are about 500 to 600 men in the group, whose goals and methods were similar to the Taliban and al Qaeda. They want to institute a fundamentalist Islamic society and eventually control the entire region. According to him, al Qaeda is in fact, closely linked to Ansar al-Islam.

"Al Qaeda is a main finance source for al Ansar," he said, "because al Qaeda now doesn't have a particular base and is scattered. They only can provide financing to al Ansar. Definitely they have the same principles and goals which the Taliban and al Qaeda have. Because [Ansar al-Islam] is in the early stage and they are small in size, they are not able to act against America as effectively as al Qaeda and Taliban did. But nevertheless, they don't hesitate to act against America. They do it, for example, they are trying to assassinate American journalists or kidnap them. Particularly those who come to Kurdistan."

There have been more recent news articles - that pretty much indicate that this is fact - not just suspicion.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Not as much as it would hurt France and Russia (BP british petrolium..can supply the UK with oil and gas for the next 60oddyrs, if needs be)......oh and of course that would directly effect NATO (did they ever answer the US' request for aid against Iraq?...I forget)

True and the Saudia Arabia has been "secretly" pumping additional oil into their reserves for use by the US in case oil is disrupted.

[Draken]

Yes I think petroleum and petroleum-based products are one of the major UK exports to the US. In terms of immediate impact on the US, events in Venezuela might be more relevant.

But switching off a chunk of oil supply anywhere would I'm sure result in the oil companies hiking prices using the old supply-and-demand argument - BP included.

[Coney]

The problem is is that the rest of the world just wants to hide it's head in the sand. Even if we came out and said that they were there - you wouldn't believe it. I imagine that the only way you'd believe it is if the Iraqi's came and personally gave you a tour.

It seems amazing that your news media may be leaving this out.

But you just stated that it was a fact....didn't you?

The United States and the Kurdish government believe Ansar al-Islam is directly linked to al Qaeda,

Spot the key-word again!.....good game this.....don't you think?

I imagine that the only way you'd believe it is if the Iraqi's came and personally gave you a tour.

No, I don't need a tour........I need evidence to believe it ........ along with most of the world it appears.

[samwiselvr2008]

Hey JD, this question is coming from an American. Why dose the military seem to send out younger people? Ppl with young children are seen hugging them goodby, my teacher's brother was eather a teen or in his early 20's when he was sent to war- they never found his body, just to let you know. If always seems like the youngens are leaving. Why??? You never see any older folks going, do you? This coming from a 13 year old, by young, I mean men about the commen age to be married and have children of 7 and less.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
Hey JD, this question is coming from an American. Why dose the military seem to send out younger people? Ppl with young children are seen hugging them goodby, my teacher's brother was eather a teen or in his early 20's when he was sent to war- they never found his body, just to let you know. If always seems like the youngens are leaving. Why??? You never see any older folks going, do you? This coming from a 13 year old, by young, I mean men about the commen age to be married and have children of 7 and less.

Because being in a war is very strenuous and you need people who are fit to do the fighting. The experienced older people lead the war and set up strategies. My brother is 21 - so you don't have to tell me that they pick younger people. My father was also 21 when he fought in Vietnam and supposedly my maternal grandfather fought in both world wars. This isn't provable - because supposedly he signed up for WWI when he was 14 and lied about his age. He was in WWII though.

Also - NO ONE is in the military who has not chosen to be - unlike during Vietnam. All those people seen hugging their children and everything - CHOSE to be there,

You should be happy you don't live in Iraq or other countries where they use children as young as 8 to fight in their wars.

[jerseydevil]

My brother sent me this. He's in the navy- was stationed in Bahrain and is now in Japan the last I heard.

Subject: Washington times article
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 23:03:27+0000

I think this Airman's response to the Washington Times should be printed in all newspapers across America. Especially now when the President is calling up more Reserves and National Guardsman. Get this response out to everyone you know. It's time the Jane Fonda's & Shaun Penn's, and Cindy Williams' of this country wise up and support the troops that defend them.

Noel Pritzl
1st Vice President USDR


Military pay article

On 12 Nov, Ms Cindy Williams (from Laverne and Shirley TV show) wrote a piece for the Washington Times, denouncing the pay raise(s) coming servicemembers' way this year -- citing that the stated 13% wage was more than they deserve.

A young airman from Hill AFB responds to her article below. He ought to get a bonus for this!

"Ms Williams:

I just had the pleasure of reading your column, "Our GIs earn enough" and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I'm wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account. Checking my latest leave
and earnings statement (LES), I see that I make $1,117.80 before taxes. After taxes, I take home $874.20. When I run that through Windows' Calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40 after.

I work in the Air Force Network Control Center (AFNCC), where I am part of the team responsible for the administration of a 5,000-host computer network. I am involved with infrastructure segments, pecifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for Network Technicians in the Washington, D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years experience with my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year, nor does it pay less than this. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum. I'm sure you can draw the obvious conclusions.

Also, you tout increases to Basic Allowance for Housing and Basic Allowance for Subsistence (housing and food allowances, respectively) as being a further boon to an already overcompensated force. Again, I'm curious as to where this money has gone, as BAH
and BAS were both slashed 15% in the Hill AFB area effective in January 00.

Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you have NEVER
had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces. Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military's lowest pay brackets off AFDC, WIC, and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for AFGHANISTAN, I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make, though, opt for the SIX monthrotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full "deployment experience."

As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they'll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone -- obviously they've been squandering the vast piles of cash the DOD has been giving them.

Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are
perennial favorites.

And when you're actually over there, sitting in a DFP (Defensive Fire Position, the modern-day foxhole), shivering against the cold desert night; and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren't enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE (meal-ready-to-eat) you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. This gives some flavor.

Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won't nearly be long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the fact that I disagree with most of the points you present in your op-ed piece.

But, tomorrow from KABUL, I will defend to the death your right to
say it. You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your
First Amendment rights and every other right you cherish. On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective nose at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe.
continued...

[jerseydevil]

We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector
because we can't offer the stability and pay of civilian companies. And you, Ms Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve?

Rubbish!

A1C Michael Bragg, Hill AFB AFNCC"

IF YOU AGREE, PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE AND SHOW OUR SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN FIGHTING MEN AND WOMEN.
THANK YOU.

THIS LETTER SHOULD BE APPLAUDED BY ANYONE WHO'S EVER SERVED OR HAD A FAMILY MEMBER SERVE IN THE ARMED FORCES! THIS YOUNG MAN DESERVES A MEDAL!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Spot the key-word again!.....good game this.....don't you think?

There was also this -

U.S. considered hitting al Qaeda site in Iraq
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials Monday told CNN the Bush administration in recent weeks considered a covert CIA and military attack on a suspected al Qaeda chemical weapons test facility in northern Iraq -- an area not controlled by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

But the officials said no mission is imminent, and another senior U.S. official said any possible attack had been called off.

U.S. intelligence sources said al Qaeda operatives have recently been in northern Iraq in an area under the control of radical Kurds and that the two groups have been working together, the sources said.

Sources said intelligence shows the site was a place where tests were conducted on barnyard animals and possibly one human.

U.S. officials stressed that because the area is under Kurdish control, they have no reason to believe Saddam would have been aware of the activity.

A senior administration official said President Bush was briefed by his national security team about the matter and that discussions included how to deal with the facility.

"We don't comment on military targeting or discussions about possible military targets," said National Security Council spokesman Michael Anton.

Another administration official noted that the facility is within the northern no-fly zone patrolled by U.S. warplanes since the end of the Persian Gulf War.

The official said it was the administration's view that even though the facility is not under Saddam's control, it is within Iraq's borders and covered by the cease-fire agreement signed at the end of the Gulf War prohibiting such facilities within Iraq.

U.S. says Iran knowingly harboring al Qaeda
"We expect every government not to harbor terrorists who are in their country and not to provide them a safe haven, and that's what we call on the Iranian government to do as well," said Scott McClellan, White House deputy press secretary. "Our views are very clear and we want to be very clear to the Iranian government on that message."

For weeks, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said there are al Qaeda operatives in Iraq and Iran, and it's known that the government in Iran recently expelled some of those terrorists to Saudi Arabia.

But an update from what's described as an "intelligence assessment" says there now are top-tier al Qaeda members in Iran, just over the border from Afghanistan.

This is what is so stupid in Europe -

France wants proof of Iraq guilt
PARIS, France -- France says it will only join an attack on Iraq if U.N. experts prove that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and refuses to eliminate them.

He's NOT supposed to have any of these weapons. They were supposed to have already been destroyed. Do these idiots really think that after being lied to for 12 years that he will all of a sudden say "Oh yeah - you caught me. I'll elimate them now."

As I said - they just want to bury their head in the sand until it's too late.

[Coney]

"We don't comment on military targeting or discussions about possible military targets,"

Spotted it yet?

considered a covert CIA and military attack on a suspected al Qaeda chemical weapons test facility in northern Iraq --

and again

For weeks, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said there are al Qaeda operatives in Iraq and Iran, and it's known that the government in Iran recently expelled some of those terrorists to Saudi Arabia.

hmm?....and still holding with the missile silo's?

PARIS, France -- France says it will only join an attack on Iraq if U.N. experts prove that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and refuses to eliminate them.

He's NOT supposed to have any of these weapons. They were supposed to have already been destroyed.

We know that Iraq are not supposed to have these weapons.....what the world is waiting for is evidence that Iraq has these weapons and has intention to use them before civilians are killed in an unjustified attack....

It's amazing......all those years of the cold war and you're still paranoid............

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
We know that Iraq are not supposed to have these weapons.....what the world is waiting for is evidence that Iraq has these weapons and has intention to use them before civilians are killed in an unjustified attack....

Oh - so now you NEED proof that he'll actually use them. Let's ask Saddam Hussein if we can hook up to the new mind reading device that the US has just invented and let's see if he will actually use the illegal weapons.

It's amazing......all those years of the cold war and you're still paranoid............

We're not paranoid. Saddam Hussein has demonstrated what kind of person he is. It isn't the same as the Soviet Union versus the US at all.

Maybe if you guys had treated Hitler the same way - there wouldn't have been World War II. or maybe if you didn't take vengence out on Germany AFTER WWI Hitler would never have come to power.

Saddam Hussein clearly demonstrated that we can either deal with him now - or deal with him later when he has more of the weapons that he is obviously producing.

[samwiselvr2008]

JD, do they forse you to enter if you HAD previosly been involved somewhere with the navy/army/military before? Like, say that I use to be in the army, gone through training and all of that stuff. So say that we go to war with Iraq, and they tell me to go. Can I say no? Or will they forse me to go, without saying "Jennifer, do you want to go to war???"

[Coney]

Oh - so now you NEED proof that he'll actually use them.

Noooo, we need proof that he actually has the weapons before there is any real threat that he will use them......or have the weapons inspectors been in Iraq for the last 8 weeks for no reason?

Let's ask Saddam Hussein if we can hook up to the new mind reading device that the US has just invented and let's see if he will actually use the illegal weapons.

Or we could just (and I'm obviously reaching into the realms of sci-fi here) ask the UN to actually find proof of WMD and act upon that......even better, they could use the facts you earlier claimed as justification

Saddam Hussein clearly demonstrated that we can either deal with him now - or deal with him later when he has more of the weapons that he is obviously producing.

He has? and he still got a grade "B" from the UN........yeesh standards of education are really slipping in this day and age

Maybe if you guys had treated Hitler the same way - there wouldn't have been World War II. or maybe if you didn't take vengence out on Germany AFTER WWI Hitler would never have come to power.

Very true.........but if we had been wrong then we would have killed for no good reason*shrugs*.....then again if Bush jnr had carried on with Clintons original procedures (instead of ingnoring them) maybe N Korea would not be the most dangerous nuclear power/supplier the world has ever known *shrugs again*.......in fact Clinton seems to have been so neglective that it is a wonder why Bush jnr waited to long to patch up the gaps he left...?

[samwiselvr2008]

Coney, what's rong with Pres. Bush "jouner"? I personally think taht he is a very good president, and I berly have any patreisom (however that is spelled) towds my country!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
JD, do they forse you to enter if you HAD previosly been involved somewhere with the navy/army/military before? Like, say that I use to be in the army, gone through training and all of that stuff. So say that we go to war with Iraq, and they tell me to go. Can I say no? Or will they forse me to go, without saying "Jennifer, do you want to go to war???"

If you are out of the armed forces - then no they won't call you up. They're not going to call my father back up - because he left the navy after vietnam. He's not inactive or anything - he is no longer part of the armed forces at all period. He was actually part of the Navy Seals and worked for the CIA.

If you are currently in the armed forces - then no you can not say - I changed my mind. If you stay in the armed forces but are inactive - then again they can call you up and say we need you. Reservists are people who are technically in the armed forces but only get called up in times of national emergency or times of war. They have chosen to be on call - to go anywhere at anytime when the need arises.

The reason to join the armed forces is to fight for your country and protect it's interests.

You can always desert - in which case you will be taken to court, court martialed and thrown in jail.

Being in the armed is not being an individual - it is taking orders. It is not an army of one as the commercials state. You listen to the commader or supervising officer and don't question - unless asked. It's regimental. The people are there to perform a duty - a duty which requires discipline.

[Coney]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
Coney, what's rong with Pres. Bush "jouner"? I personally think taht he is a very good president, and I berly have any patreisom (however that is spelled) towds my country!

Sam he is arguing that the UN (or that America will do it without UN backing) should launch hundreds of missiles and send thousands of troops into Iraq because Iraq evicted weapons inspectors because 2 of them were ex CIA operatives.......he is also claiming that Iraq has WMD without there being any proof.......*shrugs*

In my book.....this is not the way life should be in this millenium, there is enough war and conflict in the world already, without starting an unjustified one.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Very true.........but if we had been wrong then we would have killed for no good reason*shrugs*

Instead millions and millions of innocent men, women and children died in his concentration camps.
At least you guys made sure it was happening before you took action though

.....then again if Bush jnr had carried on with Clintons original procedures (instead of ingnoring them) maybe N Korea would not be the most dangerous nuclear power/supplier the world has ever known *shrugs again*.......in fact Clinton seems to have been so neglective that it is a wonder why Bush jnr waited to long to patch up the gaps he left...?

9/11 hit only 8 months after Bush took office. I don't think North Korea was on the top of the appenda then nor did he have time to act on North Korea before 9/11. Just like the week of 9/11 President Bush was scheduled to give his speech on the development of a Palestinian state.

[samwiselvr2008]

Originally posted by Coney
Sam he is arguing that the UN (or that America will do it without UN backing) should launch hundreds of missiles and send thousands of troops into Iraq because Iraq evicted weapons inspectors because 2 of them were ex CIA operatives.......he is also claiming that Iraq has WMD without there being any proof.......*shrugs*

In my book.....this is not the way life should be in this millenium, there is enough war and conflict in the world already, without starting an unjustified one.

Do you'll get no news over where you are? How can you sit there and say that they don't have any weapons? I am personally not very up-to-date on this, so maybe I shouldn't be arguing with you, but for all I know, I think that it is clear that they do have weapons. JD, didn't they only let them inspect PART of there places? Or am I just with all of the old news?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Sam he is arguing that the UN (or that America will do it without UN backing) should launch hundreds of missiles and send thousands of troops into Iraq because Iraq evicted weapons inspectors because 2 of them were ex CIA operatives.......he is also claiming that Iraq has WMD without there being any proof.......*shrugs*

This is what Suddam Hussein has said. Other inspectors from the passed have stated that there were no CIA agents - but I gues you'd rather believe a guy that has consistently lied to the world and continues to. He does continue to tell his own people that he won the Gulf War even.

He is again accusing the inspectors of containing US spies and CIA agents. So I guess again the inspections are null and void.

In my book.....this is not the way life should be in this millenium, there is enough war and conflict in the world already, without starting an unjustified one.

Yeah - just waiting until the problem develops into a real big mess is much better. That's also what everyone said about Osama bin Ladin too. He wasn't that much of a threat until he took down two 110 story buildings.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
Do you'll get no news over where you are? How can you sit there and say that they don't have any weapons?

He's not saying that Saddam doesn't have weapons of mass destruction -- he's saying there's simply no PROOF of this.

I can't believe that this is going again: haven't we covered this already?