Official 'War on Iraq' - thread

[Da_Taxman]

Important - Read first

As you probably all know by now, war against Iraq has begun. War in itself is a terrible thing and should not be taken lightly.

Here at CD Freaks we believe in the freedom of speech, but within reason. You are all entitled to your own opinion, we will not argue that. However, since this is an international forum where views on this particular war vary and probably has opposing views, we have to set strict rules when this issue is discussed on our forum.

Foremost we want to create a friendly atmosphere in which many things can be discussed, but we have to respect the various backgrounds that are visitors come from. Therefore we expect you all to abide by our 'Discuss political issues'-policy.

In this thread you can discuss the war with fellow CD Freakers, in an objective and friendly fashion. We do not allow flaming (including swearing, name-calling, bashing etc.) or otherwise offensive posts. CD Freaks crew members (mods/(senior) admins) are to remain neutral in this discussion.

When we feel that these guidelines are not followed, the particular posts that violate these guidelines will be deleted. Any other topics relating to this war will be closed, this is the one thread we'll allow on this subject.

I trust you all to be mature and use your common sense, so that we will not be forced to take such drastic measures as to delete posts or even users.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Da_Taxman

[Mr. Belvedere]

Source : Reuters

Iraq fired at least one Scud missile at Kuwait on Thursday, U.S. and Kuwaiti officials said, prompting U.S. troops to don chemical protective suits and setting emergency air raid sirens blaring in Kuwait City.

A Kuwaiti defense ministry spokesman said one Iraqi Scud hit northern Kuwait at about 0940 GMT, while U.S. officers said two Scuds hit Kuwait, and another two were inbound.

In a slightly conflicting report, a British military spokesman said Iraq had fired just one Scud, which was brought down by a U.S. Patriot missile defense battery.

"One (Scud) was knocked by a Patriot system. Where the debris landed I'm not sure. The debris is being investigated at this moment. What we can say is there are no casualties," said the spokesman at a U.S.-British military headquarters in Qatar.

The Iraq information minister denied on Thursday that Baghdad had any Scuds. The Soviet-designed missiles have a range of up to 400 miles, exceeding the 90-mile maximum limit imposed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf war.

[Mr. Belvedere]

Source : Whitehouse.gov

Current threat level :



The Department of Homeland Security in consultation with the Homeland Security Council, has made the decision to raise the national threat level from an Elevated to High risk of terrorist attack or Level Orange.

While the March 1 arrest of senior Al Qaida operative, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad (KSM) has put the Al-Qaida senior leadership on the defensive and will be debilitating in the long term -- the Intelligence Community believes that KSMs capture will not necessarily affect operations that are ready or nearly ready for execution. There are many recent indications that Al-Qaidas planning includes the use of chemical, biological, and/or radiological materials.

Operation Liberty Shield will increase security at our borders, strengthen transportation sector protections, enhance security at our critical infrastructure, increase public health preparedness and make sure all federal response assets can be deployed quickly.

These heightened security measures will help deter terrorism and increase protection of America and Americans. In the meantime, as on the other occasions when the national threat level has been increased, we encourage members of the public to continue their daily work, family and leisure activities with a heightened awareness.

[Mr. Belvedere]

Source : Whitehouse.gov :

Instead of a commitment to disarm, Iraq has a high-level political commitment to maintain and conceal its weapons, led by Saddam Hussein and his son Qusay, who controls the Special Security Organization, which runs Iraq's concealment activities. Instead of implementing national initiatives to disarm, Iraq maintains institutions whose sole purpose is to thwart the work of the inspectors. And instead of full cooperation and transparency, Iraq has filed a false declaration to the United Nations that amounts to a 12,200-page lie.

For example, the declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq's efforts to get uranium from abroad, its manufacture of specific fuel for ballistic missiles it claims not to have, and the gaps previously identified by the United Nations in Iraq's accounting for more than two tons of the raw materials needed to produce thousands of gallons of anthrax and other biological weapons.

--------------

In their turn , Iraq once said Powell was lying :

Source : WPVI :

(January 27) The Iraqi foreign minister accused U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell of a "series of lies" alleging Iraq has not cooperated with U.N. arms monitors and accused the United States of using the weapons issue as a pretext to seize Iraq's oil.

[Mr. Belvedere]

Source : Wired :

U.S. forces may use a new "e-bomb" during the expected invasion of Iraq as part of a 21st century blitzkrieg designed to render Saddam Hussein's forces blind, deaf, dumb and incapable of retaliation.

The highly classified bomb creates a brief pulse of microwaves powerful enough to fry computers, blind radar, silence radios, trigger crippling power outages and disable the electronic ignitions in vehicles and aircraft.

In modern warfare, electronics underlie almost every weapon more sophisticated than a rifle or hand grenade. For that reason, Air Force scientists have worked for decades on a practical way of producing powerful but brief pulses of microwaves that can incapacitate electronic equipment without damaging buildings or harming people.

Officially, the Pentagon does not acknowledge the weapon's existence. Asked about it at a March 5 Pentagon news conference, Gen. Tommy Franks said: "I can't talk to you about that because I don't know anything about it."

However, military analysts say a number of unclassified documents suggest such a device is ready for the battlefield.

"There's been a lot of discussion behind closed doors in the Pentagon and in the trade press that these things are now being tested," Thompson said.

According to a 2000 report by Air Force Col. Elaine M. Walling, scientists at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico have created microwave sources that generate up to 10 times the amount of energy that Hoover Dam produces in a day.

Such powerful pulses can incapacitate electronic equipment without damaging buildings or harming people, making them an attractive weapon whenever civilian casualties are a concern.

In laboratory tests, microwave pulses can melt silicon chips, pushing their circuits far beyond their capacity to conduct electricity. But on the battlefield, even the most impressive e-bomb's effects rapidly diminish with distance. Although e-bombs' capabilities are classified, military analysts believe their range is a few hundred yards at most.

That relatively short range decreases the odds that hospitals, orphanages and other civilian infrastructure will be affected, unless they are directly adjacent to or networked with military targets.

"I think it is almost always more humane to use this compared to a conventional weapon," Thompson said.

The bombs' effects are also hard to predict, analysts say. The surge of electricity produced by a microwave pulse could go directly to the nearest bank of military supercomputers, or it could just as easily be shunted harmlessly into the ground.

"The effects are hard to focus. The moment the energy is absorbed into wiring or other electrically conductive material you don't know where it's going to go," Thompson said.

Those uncertainties and others may prevent e-bombs from playing a major role in the anticipated U.S. offensive against Iraq, said Lt. Col. Piers Wood, a military analyst at the defense policy think tank Globalsecurity.org.

"There will be a few commanders who will see these and get to try them out," Wood said. "We're not talking about arsenals of these things."

Defense experts are particularly eager to see if e-bombs can reach into deep underground bunkers that could otherwise be neutralized only by tactical nuclear weapons. By shutting off the electricity, a microwave weapon could render a bunker uninhabitable by disabling lighting, security systems, ventilation and computers.

Eventually, Wood said, other nations may acquire high-power microwave weapons; American forces, which depend so heavily on technology, would be particularly vulnerable to them. He predicted that soon all military electronics will have to be protected from high-power microwaves by metal casings, with sophisticated circuit breakers connected to any incoming wires.

[Mr. Belvedere]

Source : Slashdot :

No matter what happens, there will be less death in Iraq caused by us in the next week than the last decade of chlorine embargo we imposed. .5 million children have died because the US targeted water and sewage cleaning facilities in Iraq, then made it nearly impossible for him to restore them.

Not to mention none of our reasons for war have panned out yet. The document about Iraq trying to purchase nuclear materials was a forgery. We still haven't seen a WMD. 10 y/old WMD are more of a danger to himself than a threat. He can't even get enough chlorine to purify water, yet they say he has biological weapons.

Bush's support is going to fall quickly if the war goes by without a single WMD bding used. He'll have a hard time showing that the hurt to foreign relations with most of the world, death of many innocents, our losses, and even the cost of the weapons spent during the war were worth the outcome.

Before anyone posts "Saddam gasses his own people, their freedom is worth it" you'll have to justify those 500,000 children's deaths because we targeted water purification plants during the last war, and our sanctions that include a chlorine embargo to keep them dieing. If you cared about the people, I tend to believe that you would have said something sooner.

[panos]

I can 't understand this censorship. What is the worst we can do even if we are "flaming"? You must be near in having a record in banning posts today .

[Bulk]

Anybody see Blair's speech in the house of commons?
Best speech I've heard in recent times. I believe the war is legal and justified. I also believe that the French policy to vito any new resolution regardless of the circumstances is more ignorant than the allied forces attacking Iraq. The only language Saddam knows is a threatening one. To have a resolution which says Iraq must disarm, but if they don't we will call them bad names is just not sufficant. The threat of military action is needed in order to force Iraq to comply. The French and co. say that the current build up of troops on Iraq's borders is forcing Saddam to comply. However, I have to echo Blair's statement that, it is British and American troops there and not the French! Weapons inspectors will never find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This is simply because an amount of deadly chemical substances capable of killing thousands of people can be contained in a small cup. What chance have weapons inspectors got of finding a cup in a country the size of Iraq? To those that say the inspectors need more time, I say to them, how much more time do they want? They have had 12 years. Saddam has never fully complied with any UN resolution. UN resolution's are pointless in the current climate. To those which say the US and UK are breaking up the authority of the UN, I put it to them that it is the French and co. which is breaking the authority of the UN. To vote on resolution 1441 which gives clear authority of force with serious consequences if Iraq failed to comply immediately, and then to U-Turn on what every member of the security council voted for is just typical of "Old Europe". In 1441 it stated that Iraq must comply fully at once. I put it to you that we should have been at war last November, since Iraq failed to meet the demand of 1441. We (IE Allied forces) gave Iraq even more time to comply but they did not. I agree with some other people that posted in some of the other threads which are locked, that we shall see France and co. at the finish line.

[ckin2001]

flaming produces an emotional atmosphere, which is probably not conducive to having an open, objective discussion.

to play devils advocate here, i ask bulk to consider the US's take on UN resolutions towards itself. while i dont know as well, i'd wager the US has a pretty crappy record of living up to them.

and for the record, i can remember a time when the number of removed posts was probably 3fold over whatever it is now .

[Bulk]

Yes, I consider the way the US has behaved at the UN in the past. However, let us not let the past get in the way of doing what is right here and now. Saddam is an evil dicatator. The world will be a more peacful place once rid of him.

[alexnoe]

What is the worst we can do even if we are "flaming"?

Do a search for "Iraq" or "war", and i'm sure you will find the answer yourself.

I'm under the impression that you are under the delusion that flaming is only forbidden in political threads

[iamrocket]

I think the true test of whether or not this is a 'just' war remains to be seen. First of all, does Iraq really have chemical or biological weapons? Second, how will the US replace the current government, will they claim ownership of the country (and its oil) or will they allow the Iraqi's their own form of self governing? In order for it to be just, the US cant just be in it only for their own benefit, as to get cheaper oil or takeover of the country, of course the end result may be cheaper oil either way, I suppose, but that shouldn't be the goal. (I don't think it is, but it may be). I do think the greatest concern here is the US not working with the UN. Even if the UN is slow to make decisions, or weak in following up on inspections, there needs to be that accountability not only for Iraq but for the US. They are so powerful that they have become unstoppable. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. They may be right in this current situation, but what of future situations? Who will stand in their way?

[TeeCee]

Originally posted by iamrocket
I think the true test of whether or not this is a 'just' war remains to be seen. First of all, does Iraq really have chemical or biological weapons? Second, how will the US replace the current government, will they claim ownership of the country (and its oil) or will they allow the Iraqi's their own form of self governing? In order for it to be just, the US cant just be in it only for their own benefit, as to get cheaper oil or takeover of the country, of course the end result may be cheaper oil either way, I suppose, but that shouldn't be the goal. (I don't think it is, but it may be). I do think the greatest concern here is the US not working with the UN. Even if the UN is slow to make decisions, or weak in following up on inspections, there needs to be that accountability not only for Iraq but for the US. They are so powerful that they have become unstoppable. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. They may be right in this current situation, but what of future situations? Who will stand in their way?

It is not and will never be the US's policy to "claim" a nation. I can't imagin even the thought in the part of the world let alone any where.

I hope the US does the right thing and I believe I have heard this, the US will involve the UN when it gets to that point.

[Savannah]

Originally posted by Da_Taxman
CD Freaks crew members (mods/(senior) admins) are to remain neutral in this discussion.

Geeze, I know its a touchy subject (the war and all), but you people are human to! You have emotions like everyone else. Why is it that you lot have to be neutral? Theres nothing wrong with that mind you. Its just that, well, it doesnt seem fair.

Granted there are easier and more coherant ways to express you opinions, however there are a hell of a lot of posts which I bet get you steamed. Then what, just 'walk away'? Its a lot harder to do that than people may think.

[Mr. Belvedere]

Originally posted by Savannah


Geeze, I know its a touchy subject (the war and all), but you
people are human to!

Finally ! Someone acknowledges the mods and admins as human. (Although i'm not entirely sure about Da Taxman myself)

You have emotions like everyone else. Why is it that you lot have to be neutral? Theres nothing wrong with that mind you. Its just that, well, it doesnt seem fair.

Granted there are easier and more coherant ways to express you opinions, however there are a hell of a lot of posts which I bet get you steamed. Then what, just 'walk away'? Its a lot harder to do that than people may think.

Well , it's just better that the mods and admins don't participate in a flamewar , because .. they will always win.

This may sound arrogant , but think about it. They have the power to kick , ban , delete, edit and modify. What good would it do to any forum if the people who are asked to keep it happy and friendly , run havoc on its users. I doubt the forum would live long.

So , in the long end , it would make a forum useless , because who would delibrately go to a forum to be bashed by the people who moderate it ? In the end , all of its users would dissapear and all knowledge is forgotten..

I guess it's the same in about any community. Even Saddam can't do much without the people in the country to live there. If they're all dead , i doubt Saddam would live happy. And if really ALL the americans are against their President Bush , i think President Bush would at least be forced to resign.

[iamrocket]

Originally posted by TeeCee


It is not and will never be the US's policy to "claim" a nation. I can't imagin even the thought in the part of the world let alone any where.

I hope the US does the right thing and I believe I have heard this, the US will involve the UN when it gets to that point.

I realize that the US hasn't claimed any nations in the past, my point was to address the fears and mistrust that many have for the US, especially as it pertains to the 'world police' role they take. I have heard statements to this affect, though I don't perscribe to them.
As to the second sentence, the US is currently ignoring the UN so how does this apply? (I'm not saying they are doing wrong, just that they are ignoring the UN)

[Savannah]

Originally posted by Mr. Belvedere
Finally ! Someone acknowledges the mods and admins as human.

Well, maybe it was a poor choice of words

But in seriousness, I didnt mean to participate in a flame war, they are childish and un-neccesary. Reason being (among others) no-one gets their point across as everyone is acting like spoilt children.

What I meant was, you are asked to remain neutral, but you to have emotions which drive you, which almost define you, and yet you must find another way to express yourself.

Unfair, why not just do what a normal member would do (within certain limits (ie. still abide by the rules)) and just not use your admin/mod/etc powers? (delete, ban etc)

Also, I completly agree with your example, its quite defining. Is that what goes on in moderator school?

[Donald_Duck]

Saddam may be evil but I don't think that starting a war can be the right way to deal with anything whatever the circumstances may be.

[Bulk]

Originally posted by Donald_Duck
Saddam may be evil but I don't think that starting a war can be the right way to deal with anything whatever the circumstances may be.

How else do you deal with him? He doesnt know any other language.

[dansmug]

Originally posted by iamrocket
I realize that the US hasn't claimed any nations in the past, my point was to address the fears and mistrust that many have for the US, especially as it pertains to the 'world police' role they take. I have heard statements to this affect, though I don't perscribe to them.

As a comic side note (do not want to get into this discussion again), the US have some sort of claim on Antarctica. Pretty weird, I guess you'll find the info some where on the net, too lazy to search.

[Airhead]

Moderators always wins, administrators win even more easily cause there is no small italic text giving you away
And thats why we...

[Daehria]

... talk through other persons.
War is always a failure.

[alexnoe]

Unfair, why not just do what a normal member would do (within certain limits (ie. still abide by the rules)) and just not use your admin/mod/etc powers? (delete, ban etc)

There are fears that some forum members may confuse the personal opinion, which one moderator/admin writes down, with the opinion of the united borg consciousness of the entire cdfreaks staff.

[Airhead]

Oh yes the Borg... That's why we have so many moderators, resistance is futile

[panos]

Originally posted by alexnoe
Do a search for "Iraq" or "war", and i'm sure you will find the answer yourself.

I'm under the impression that you are under the delusion that flaming is only forbidden in political threads

I agree in general but what i don 't like is to ban a thread even before someone does brakes the rules, as preventive censorship.

Hmm isn 't what Bush does with Iraq right now?