Iraq

[L@ur@y Elven Warrior]

Yes it would effect the lot of us but if they bomb Donreay the People in Caithness will died straight away.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by L@ur@y Elven Warrior
Yes it would effect the lot of us but if they bomb Donreay the People in Caithness will died straight away.

How are they going to bomb you in Scottland?

[BeardofPants]

I was wondering the same thing. Perhaps Saddam has paid out N. Korea to tunnel up into Scotland?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I just thought I'd introduce this amusing clip into the discussion.

[Coney]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I just thought I'd introduce this amusing clip into the discussion.

hehe.....catchy tune

[markedel]

*Sigh*

Israel was formed by a UN vote-alongside a Palestinian state that the palestinians and their allies rejected, because Israel did too. Instead they decided to go into a war they lost, largely because of their own disunity and incompetance, and not thanks to foreign support. I doubt the UN would have mourned a stillborn Israel in 1949. Regardless it wouldn't mourn a dead one next year, I don't believe partition won that large a majority.

The war began because the Palestinians wanted-in the land originally allotted by the UN there was a Jewish minority (albeit a thin one). The IDF was not without its flaws, this is true, but to put it in perspectives the Jewish communities in the areas occupied by Jordan and Egypt were destroyed by the war and restored in 1967. In violation of armstice agreements no Jews were allowed in the Old city (whose Jewish community fell to siege, and then was obliberated, quite literally-the buildings were dynamited) until after the 6 day war. The conflict does not exist because of Israeli expansionism but Israeli existance. The Israelis did not create the situation-if the palestinians accepted the UN resolutions they would have had a state, a larger state then any they will get now, barring wholesale conquest of Israel.

Besides which-Israel was no U.S ally in 1948. Its only foreign support (aside from kind words) was from Communist Czechoslovakia, whose guns kept the IDF afloat. In fact Israel got little American support until after 1967, at which point it became obvious how much material the Soviets were shipping to Israel's neighbors.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I just thought I'd introduce this amusing clip into the discussion.

That is funny. It's funny that that was posted on September 2nd and we still haven't done anything though. I give Saddam until March 28th - then I think we're going in there.

Here are some others...

"Saddam Has Got The Bombs, Baby!"

Here is a game...
"War On Terror Game - Play It Now"

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I suck at that game! OK, missile guidance is out as a career.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I suck at that game! OK, missile guidance is out as a career.

So do I.

Here are some others.

"The Saddam Palace Game"

"Saddam Is F#@%ED!"

"Saddam Is Full Of Camel Sh%t"

"Saddam Is Playing Games"

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Ok, I'm starting to get a bit worried here...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by markedel
The conflict does not exist because of Israeli expansionism but Israeli existance. The Israelis did not create the situation-if the palestinians accepted the UN resolutions they would have had a state, a larger state then any they will get now, barring wholesale conquest of Israel.

Jerseydevil brought across much of what you were saying quite well in his posts on the subject. I know that the wars were started by the Arabs and that the Israelies were at a severe disadvantage through most of them. However, you're refusing to see that there's more than one side to the story. History and present day evidence points to a policy in the Israeli government. There is reason plainly visible for it having happened and there is evidence plainly visible that it has happened. Much of this evidence I sited in my previous post, and you didn't respond to it. I agree with you and jerseydevil that the Arabs were fighting to annihilate the Jews. That was plainly expressed by the Grand Mufti in Jerusalem in 1947 when he said, "Murder the Jews! Murder them all!" and vowed to drive them into the sea.

But as I demonstrated in my previous post, there is evidence, present day and historical, for the Jews having such a method of expulsion and land taking. Oh, one question, do you automatically discount all of the eye witness accounts from the Palestinian side? And the Israelies have ignored the UN and don't even allow the Palestinians they expelled for "safety reasons" back into their own homes. Because of the danger, they have everyone leave a block of land. Then, when the danger is over, they deny these people reentry and populate the area with Jewish settlers.

Besides which-Israel was no U.S ally in 1948. Its only foreign support (aside from kind words) was from Communist Czechoslovakia, whose guns kept the IDF afloat. In fact Israel got little American support until after 1967, at which point it became obvious how much material the Soviets were shipping to Israel's neighbors.

I was saying that America is Israel's primary ally now.

[markedel]

I did admit the IDF expelled palestinians (though in 1967 they did undertake a limited family reunification program). My argument is that when you start a war you have to reap what you sow. (It is my feeling the U.S isn't prepared for such an eventuality with Iraq-which is why an invasion, for all its merits is likely a bad idea). Israel, after all, is not asking for compensation for all the Jews expelled out of Arab countries directly because of the War of Independence, but is in fact offering money to compensate Palestinian refugees. There is the striking difference-the current president of Israel is from such a family of expelled refugees as they were integrated (not always successfully) into the state. The Palestinians sit in U.S funded refugee camps while their Arab brethren fund Hamas and Hizbollah rather then new housing.

Most of the state of Israel is from legally bought land (unfortunetly I don't have the numbers, but if you like I can look and PM at some point). I also deplore the way Israel expropriates land, and has done so, especially in the West Bank. On the other hand, if Camp David was signed then there'd be a Palestinian state, and Israel would not be stealing land. Whether a Palestinian state is enough to stop the suicide bombings is, in my view, rather questionable, and I think the fact Israelis are willing to take such a risk after an obvious Palestinian rejection of the land for peace principle as quite commendable. Israel is obviously not perfect, but I don't see people asking for perfection from the palestinians in such debates.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by markedel
I did admit the IDF expelled palestinians (though in 1967 they did undertake a limited family reunification program). My argument is that when you start a war you have to reap what you sow.

No, because as you probably know, the Jews weren't fighting the Palestinians as their primary foe. Originally got along well with the Palestinians and the two groups lived peacefully alongside each other. You can't round all the Palestinians into a group and say that they were all involved or in support of the war. They lived in Israel and among the Jews, but were scared out or expelled. It isn't fair to say that the Israelies taking advantage of the situation is all right (or at least relatively) because they were in a state of war. They were using the situation they were in to gain land and votes; I'm afraid I just don't see that punishing citizens of their country is justified. Their enemies weren't those they were expelling.

(It is my feeling the U.S isn't prepared for such an eventuality with Iraq-which is why an invasion, for all its merits is likely a bad idea). Israel, after all, is not asking for compensation for all the Jews expelled out of Arab countries directly because of the War of Independence, but is in fact offering money to compensate Palestinian refugees. There is the striking difference-the current president of Israel is from such a family of expelled refugees as they were integrated (not always successfully) into the state. The Palestinians sit in U.S funded refugee camps while their Arab brethren fund Hamas and Hizbollah rather then new housing.

I'm not saying that the Arab nations have behaved well or that their wars were good or right. I'm not saying that they can explain away their share in the blame. Both you and I see the situation at hand now as caused by faults on both sides. But the Palestinians were primarily only victims; note that those who were pushed out of their homes were pushed out of their homes. These weren't soldiers and they weren't against Israel. What I'm frustrated at is Israel's taking advantage of the Palestinians because of their wars.

If you can show me some documentation that shows the Palestinians were rising up in revolt on a large scale as the Arab nations hoped they would, I'll be more inclined to agree with you that their being expelled was simply a consequence of war.

Most of the state of Israel is from legally bought land (unfortunetly I don't have the numbers, but if you like I can look and PM at some point). I also deplore the way Israel expropriates land, and has done so, especially in the West Bank. On the other hand, if Camp David was signed then there'd be a Palestinian state, and Israel would not be stealing land. Whether a Palestinian state is enough to stop the suicide bombings is, in my view, rather questionable, and I think the fact Israelis are willing to take such a risk after an obvious Palestinian rejection of the land for peace principle as quite commendable. Israel is obviously not perfect, but I don't see people asking for perfection from the palestinians in such debates.

Mmm, actually quite a lot is demanded of the Palestinians. Sharon determined not to negotiate until the terrorism stopped- something highly unlikely to happen. Terror is being bred in those refugee camps and Sharon's invasions of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank only intensified the hatred and despair. You can't just leave them in the conditions that breed terror and tell them that they have to stop the terrorism before you'll negotiate with them.

As I see it, an end to terrorism has to happen by an end coming to the factors that inspire terrorism. Those things that inspire terrorism in the refugee in the refugee camps are generally anger, hunger and intense poverty.

Israel's enemies are taking advantage of the injustice done to the Palestinians to push their own ends. It isn't in the interests of the Arab nations to house the Palestinians, for this would eliminate a motive for war against Israel and regaining strong dominion in the Middle East. I strongly disapprove of their attitude and of their refusal to help the Palestinians out of their trouble in any way but war with Israel, but I don't think that this excuses Israel's conduct.

[BeardofPants]

Erm. Anyhoo. Back to Iraq:

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story...905936,00.html

Btw: I LOVE the push for use of chemical warfare during combat from the United States' side. Oh the hypocracy!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Erm. Anyhoo. Back to Iraq:

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story...905936,00.html

Btw: I LOVE the push for use of chemical warfare during combat from the United States' side. Oh the hypocracy!

BoP - find a news source other than one which obviously has an agenda...

The memo describes orders to staff at the agency, whose work is clouded in secrecy, to step up its surveillance operations 'particularly directed at...UN Security Council Members (minus US and GBR, of course)' to provide up-to-the-minute intelligence for Bush officials on the voting intentions of UN members regarding the issue of Iraq.

They are obviously not impartial in their views when they make editorial comments in their news stories.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Btw: I LOVE the push for use of chemical warfare during combat from the United States' side. Oh the hypocracy!

yeah - tear gas and pepper spray is on the same level as Vx nerve gas. You're really trying to prove the the US is the evil one in the world - aren't you?

Try this news article - which at least give a more BALANCED view...

U.S. tear gas use in Iraq may violate weapons treaties

SAN FRANCISCO - Army Maj. Gen. David Grange is proud to have ordered his troops to use tear gas on hostile Serb crowds in Bosnia six years ago.

"We didn't kill anyone," said the now-retired Grange. "It saved lives."

His only complaint was that red tape prevented him from using tear gas more often.

The Pentagon is drafting guidelines under which American solders could use riot control agents such as tear gas and pepper spray in Iraq to control unruly prisoners and separate enemy soldiers from civilians, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress earlier this month.

While countries may use nonlethal chemicals domestically for law enforcement and crowd control, the Chemical Weapons Convention that took force in 1997 and has been ratified by 149 countries including The United States, specifies: "Each state party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare."

That provision was hotly contested during the 15 years it took to craft the treaty. It arose as an objection to the United States' reliance on tear gas to flush out Viet Cong fighters and kill them during the Vietnam War.

Whether American "law enforcement" extends beyond a nation's borders is a matter of fierce international debate. The concept will be discussed in April when the treaty comes up for international review in The Hague, Netherlands.

Weapons-control activists cite myriad reasons for banning nonlethal chemical weapons in war.

The agents can actually kill, they argue, when used in war environments. They could also put militaries on a slippery slope to using nastier, deadlier chemicals.

Irritants such as tear gas and pepper spray are tame in comparison to other agents under development.

The U.S. military has explored mind-altering drugs such as opiates, along with genetically engineered microorganisms that can destroy objects like runways, vehicles and buildings.

The research is spearheaded by the U.S. Marine Corps' Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, which was created in 1997 to equip soldiers on overseas peacekeeping and other non-combat duties.

The directorate's mission is to help troops deal with panic-stricken or hostile crowds, like those faced in a failed peacekeeping mission in Somalia.

In one 1993 street battle in Mogadishu, 19 U.S. soldiers and more than 1,000 Somalis were killed. Some military experts say the death toll would have been far lower had soldiers fired nonlethal chemical weapons.

A Pennsylvania State University institute prepared a 50-page report with Pentagon funding in October 2000 that explored a range of drugs - including Prozac, Valium and Zoloft - for use as "calmatives" for crowds.

The researchers found "use of non-lethal calmative techniques is achievable and desirable."

Despite the endorsement, Marine Capt. Shawn Turner of the nonlethal weapons directorate said the military stopped "calmative" research because such drug-weapons may violate international law.

Turner said much of the directorate's $25 million annual budget is spent developing "directed energy" weapons such as laser or microwave guns that stun rather than kill.

"With all these technologies starting to surface in security and the military, maybe there is a real need to revisit these international conventions to reassess if they are still applicable," said Andrew Mazzara, director of the Penn State institute that prepared the calmative report.

But even boosters of nonlethal technology concede that the United States has a perception problem on its hands if it uses chemicals on Iraqis.

"The initial emotional and visceral response are that chemical weapons are bad," said retired Col. John Alexander, a member of a National Research Council panel that urged the United States to continue nonlethal weapons research. "And it's so contentious because one of our big points is that Iraq has chemical weapons."

Weapons control activists, though, see more at stake.

"I wouldn't be surprised if the Bush administration pushes against the treaty as far as it can," said Barbara Rosenberg, chairwoman of the bioweapons group for the Federation of American Scientists.

Rosenberg and others fear the U.S. military wants to weaponize more dangerous chemicals - like the drug used in November to end a hostage crisis at a Moscow theater.

[BeardofPants]

JD, says BoP sweetly, ALL news media has an agenda.

And for the upteenth time, I don't think the US is evil. And have you heard of a slippery slope? What makes you think they'd stop at tear gas?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
JD, says BoP sweetly, ALL news media has an agenda.

Sorry - but some media is more biased than others. You have a real knack for picking out articles that obvioulsy have an anti-american slant to them. Why would they find it necessary to say..." (minus US and GBR, of course)"

And for the upteenth time, I don't think the US is evil. And have you heard of a slippery slope? What makes you think they'd stop at tear gas?

What makes you think we won't stop there? isn't using NON-LETHAL methods preferrable to using lethal means. It seems sort of ironic - you can shoot people during war - but you can't use tear gas to subdue them so you don't kill them.

You've said that you don't think the US is evil - so shouldn't you trust us to be more responsible than other countries have been.

Do you think we're stupid? Do you think we don't KNOW the world is watching how we handle Iraq. That if we WERE to use chemical weapons, kill untold civilians or anything else that there would be a backlash against us. Don't you think that we are doing EVERYTHING in our power to not kill innocent civilians, not to do anything that anyone can use against us (besides Osama of course, we could bomb israel and he would come up with some excuse to hate us).

If you ever gave the US credit for doing anything right or if you ever showed any faith in America - it would be the sure sign that hell was freezing over.

[Coney]

What makes you think we won't stop there? isn't using NON-LETHAL methods preferrable to using lethal means.

Can you say depleted uranium?

Yes?....Good

Missiles?

Very good!

Now, put the three words together and what do you get?

Iraqi people still dying from radiation poisoning and cancer from the Gulf Conflict

If you ever gave the US credit for doing anything right or if you ever showed any faith in America - it would be the sure sign that hell was freezing over.

More ice in your Long Island Ice tea Mr Bush........erm, I mean lucifer?

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Sorry - but some media is more biased than others. You have a real knack for picking out articles that obvioulsy have an anti-american slant to them. Why would they find it necessary to say..." (minus US and GBR, of course)"

Because it was in the original memo, if you'd bothered to read it.
It was NOT the Observer saying this, it was the author of the memo.

The home affairs editor of the Observer said he had had agreed to interviews with CNN, NBC and Fox News Channel- but all three called back to cancel- I wonder why?