UN weapons inspectors in Iraq are yet to find "any smoking gun", it has been reported.

More... (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,5806964%255E1702,00.html)

Good. Maybe Bush will withdraw the troops he has amassed now. He's such an ass. :mad:

The UN hasn't even been looking seriously, so it's really no suprise.

Of course, this report will be used to attack Bush, but I could care less.

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "War is neither imminent nor is it inevitable."

crap!

# USA Today reported Monday that the U.S. Army has placed more than 10,000 reservists on alert to head overseas in as little as one week, joining about 54,000 reservists already on active duty.

# The 1000-bed Navy hospital ship comfort left Baltimore on Monday for the Gulf. Cargo vessels are en route to the Gulf with heavy equipment, according to newspaper reports.

# Last week, the Pentagon began deploying some elements of the 45,000-member 1st Marine Expeditionary Force and the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, as well as about 1,300 engineers and intelligence officers based in Germany.

# Mr. Bush Friday spoke at length about the potential conflict. "You'll be fighting not to conquer anybody but to liberate people," should force be required in the Persian Gulf, Mr. Bush said, his voice swelling with emotion.

# In December, American forces participated in a huge desert war game. The practice session, involving troops and armor from the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, was "the biggest maneuver exercise since the Gulf War," according to Maj. Gen. Buford Blount.

# The man who would command U.S. troops in any such war, Gen. Tommy Franks, held a war game of his own in early December that tested his command's communication, control and strategic capabilities.

# Reports indicate that retaliatory attacks by U.S. and British war planes patrolling the no-fly zones over Iraq have increased in intensity.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent?file=FL_war_010703

Who said the us. needs the u.n. to find a smoking gun in iraq? Judging by all the troops building up in the region soon there is gonna be plenty of smoke and guns in iraq....

looks like Mr G has a friend or maybe an ALIAS?

asguard
what clique do you belong to?

I believe it is now time to say war with Iraq is inevitable. That's all I can say about that.

Kyle, what makes you think the UN hasn't been looking seriously? The biggest joke is America bullshitting they have evidence but not sharing it with the UN teams.

Originally posted by Adam
Well, very true, ….but lets wait until the 27th of January for a semi-formal update to the UN by the inspectors.

It doesn’t really matter, we will come up with something and don’t really need a smoking-gun. The only option for Sadam is to quickly buy some mass-destruction weapons (one will do) and present it to the inspectors, because if he can’t prove it, than he’s guilty

Does anyone think that all this propaganda, threats and intimidations, plus the deployment of technology, weaponry and forces into the region can go wasted??

Noooooo way!

Does anyone think that all this propaganda, threats and intimidations, plus the deployment of technology, weaponry and forces into the region can go wasted??

Exactly. The US Gov't is just looking for an excuse now. :rolleyes:

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/12/WarinFebruary.shtml

The biggest joke is America bullshitting they have evidence but not sharing it with the UN teams.
Well, supposedly the evidence they have is a former Iraqi scientist that has defected and ratted on the weapons programs.

Now, I agree that isn't much and by no means concrete evidence...but that was the card they were playing and so far they have come up with a bust.

I really hope we back away but I keep hearing reports of more military buildup.

fading captain, I read a report from the US, or was it on the US news one night, I can't remember. but it said that getting the troops there would cost 4 or 5 billion dollars. I don't think someone will spend that much then back away :0( I can't even think who supports this war, is it just America, UK and Australian governments? I know Turkey is having second thoughts.

I was watching Some BBC program last night where a former UK ambassador to Iraq commented that attacking Iraq will only increase terrorism, and that it might not be the first reason, but that oil is one of the reasons for this war.

Just because it costs a couple billion doesn't mean we can't back out. It would still cost way more to conduct the war (if you wanna call it that). I think bush and the rest of the administration's pride is a much bigger obstacle than money in turning back.

There have been many more nations give support for the war but only in words, not action. How much they really support us isn't very clear.

I don't think oil is much of a factor. It has much more to do with still rampant fears of another 911, IMO. I don't think bombing Iraq is the way to deal with these threats, but many people feel otherwise. Yes, it will only lead to more terrorism. How my government cannot see this...I dunno.

The US is forcing the world to turn against it, at least in the middle east. We are becoming a mockery of the values we purport to uphold.

It is time for us to take a step back and put trust in the united nations. We may get burned for it but it is the noble and smart thing to do.

Originally posted by RichardJA
I was watching Some BBC program last night where a former UK ambassador to Iraq commented that attacking Iraq will only increase terrorism, and that it might not be the first reason, but that oil is one of the reasons for this war. There are much better targets if we want oil.

Now explain to me, how will attacking Iraq increase terrorism? Stop it with the assumptions and hearsay.

well, at least New Zealand had the balls to publicly say we don't support a US war on Iraq and wont being sending any soldiers to fight it. Actually we went further and said we do not consider Iraq to be a threat. And that an attack on Iraq "would complicate the fight against terror"

Originally posted by RichardJA
well, at least New Zealand had the balls to publicly say we don't support a US war on Iraq and wont being sending any soldiers to fight it. Actually we went further and said we do not consider Iraq to be a threat. And that an attack on Iraq "would complicate the fight against terror" I don't think anyone will really miss New Zealand.

Kyle, go do some reading, learn what you are talking about before you say something.

Actually NZ has lead the world in many areas.

And I think a former UK ambassador to Iraq giving his views on a news program has a hell of a lot more knowledge of what is talking about than you. So I will take his views on Iraq above yours.

Here is my logic for how an attack on Iraq would increase terrorism on the US:

A. Amount of terrorist activity rises as anti-US sentiment rises.

B. Amount of anti-US sentiment will rise if we unilaterally bomb a country that is not an immediate threat to other nations.

C. Iraq is not an immediate threat to other nations.

Therefore, amount of terrorist activity will rise if we bomb Iraq.


Points A and B are pretty concrete. Point C could be argued but I think it is pretty sturdy also.

Originally posted by RichardJA
Kyle, go do some reading, learn what you are talking about before you say something.

Actually NZ has lead the world in many areas.

And I think a former UK ambassador to Iraq giving his views on a news program has a hell of a lot more knowledge of what is talking about than you. So I will take his views on Iraq above yours. k dood, u beat me. Certainly a UK ambassador is the be all end all of a discussion. Ur :cool: dood.
Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Here is my logic for how an attack on Iraq would increase terrorism on the US:

A. Amount of terrorist activity rises as anti-US sentiment rises.

B. Amount of anti-US sentiment will rise if we unilaterally bomb a country that is not an immediate threat to other nations. It was our complacency and weak backlash that led al-Qaeda to believe that, even after September 11th, we were not planning to fight back.

C. Iraq is not an immediate threat to other nations.

Therefore, amount of terrorist activity will rise if we bomb Iraq.


Points A and B are pretty concrete. Point C could be argued but I think it is pretty sturdy also.
A. Why? anti-US sentiment is as high as ever in the Middle East but nothing has changed. Why haven't we been attacked in the last year? Why is it that a guy with an assault rifle in Washington D.C. caused more fear in the last year in the US than al Qaeda has achieved?

Why is it that Bali was bombed, when they actively resisted joining in any sort of fight against terrorism? They certainly have nothing to do with the world, except for hosting night clubs that are forbidden by islamic fundamentalism. Could that be it?

B. No, it wont. The ammount of anti-US sentiment will rise if we are complacent and refuse to retaliate when are large number of our citizens, and a chunk of our economy, and ruthlessly destroyed.

C. Iraq actively finances terrorism and that's enough justification for an attack. But it's not our only justification for an attack. They have actively fought against the US, refusing to following the agreement they signed that ended the Gulf War. They've done so many evil deeds, that they deserve the comming war. It's only sadening that it took 9/11 to spark it.. Iraq will not be our only target in the Middle East; by the time we're done, we will have dismembered every regime that supports terrorism in some form. Starting with Iraq, and ending with Saudi Arabia.

America actively supports terrorism, not only do they continue to train freedom fighters in America, but they support the terrorist actions of Israel.

Everything has changed. Over a billion Arabs watch night after night the atrocities that Israel commits against the Palestine, with America just giving more support to Israel. The depth of hatred towards America is growing because of that. If America deals with that situation first then the middle east will calm down and support an American attack against Iraq. Even Turkey is now having to reconsider their involvement because of a growing tension in turkey towards America

Everyone knows that the Palestianians don't commit atrocities. Of course it's all america's and Israel's fault.

Kyle, why do you think someone blows themselves up? When you push people constantly, when you take their land away, shoot their children for throwing stones at tanks. They fight back the only way left open for them.

Read this thread Kyle, maybe then you can understand

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15179

By the way those question were all put forward and answered by James J. David Retired Brigadier General. Note - James J. David is a retired Brigadier General and a graduate of the U.S. Army's Command and General Staff College, and the National Security Course, National Defense University, Washington, DC. He served as a Company Commander with the 101st Airborne Division in the Republic of Vietnam in 1969 and 1970 and also served nearly 3 years of Army active duty in and around the Middle East from 1967-1969. He sees Israel as the true threat, not Iraq

Originally posted by RichardJA
Kyle, why do you think someone blows themselves up? When you push people constantly, when you take their land away, shoot their children for throwing stones at tanks. They fight back the only way left open for them. Bullshit. The people leading these movements, as well as the people who commited the terrorist acts against the US, grew up in a middle to upper class setting.

Why is it that, when Israel made the largest concessions since 1967, the intifada began? Why is it that they refuse to accept peace at any time, and begin aggressions anew when Israel makes offers for peace?

Why is it that we haven't been suicide bombed by the Japanese for dropping nuclear bombs on their country? Why don't the Vietnamese hijack our airplans and fly them into our skyscrapers? Surely they've had to deal with far more than the palestinians could ever hope to.

They fight back the only way left open for them.

- Blowing up women and children, restaurants and universities is NEVER the only way to fight back. Its disturbing that something like that could even be suggested.

Why is it that they refuse to accept peace at any time, and begin aggressions anew when Israel makes offers for peace?

These aggressions aren't one-side. One of the reasons fuelling these aggressions are the Israel settlers' occupation of Palestinian land.

who shot the iralie PM who was going to deal with palistine?

Kyle,
Why? anti-US sentiment is as high as ever in the Middle East but nothing has changed.
I see more terrorist activities against US/Western targets. Plus, it only makes sense that the more someone hates us, the higher the likelihood of a backlash. Are you saying that we would see more terrorism if anti-US sentiment went down? Bullshit!

The ammount of anti-US sentiment will rise if we are complacent and refuse to retaliate
Again, this is not what I have seen. Anti-US sentiment skyrocketed after the campaign in afganistan.

Iraq actively finances terrorism and that's enough justification for an attack. But it's not our only justification for an attack.
Iraq deserves a spanking, I absolutely agree. But it needs to be done through the united nations. This is the new world order...any country that attacks unilaterally is going to be hated. Of course, the US would still send in most of the troops, but we need the full support of (at least) the major countries. Attacking now on our own would do more harm than good.

Originally posted by fadingCaptain

Iraq deserves a spanking, I absolutely agree.
Nah, not Iraq, just Saddam.

Nah, not Iraq, just Saddam.
Yes, true. Saddam and his sons from what I have gathered. As in any case of a tyrannical dictatorship, the Iraqi people are pretty much innocent bystanders...

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Kyle,

I see more terrorist activities against US/Western targets. Plus, it only makes sense that the more someone hates us, the higher the likelihood of a backlash. Are you saying that we would see more terrorism if anti-US sentiment went down? Bullshit!
Terrorist attacks only occur in nations that are complacent in fighting islamic fundamentalism within their nation. The Bali bombing occured not because they wanted to spite the US, but because they saw the influence of Western ideals in the club. As a result of their complacency, a large portion of their tourist industry is now lost.
Iraq deserves a spanking, I absolutely agree. But it needs to be done through the united nations. This is the new world order...any country that attacks unilaterally is going to be hated. Of course, the US would still send in most of the troops, but we need the full support of (at least) the major countries. Attacking now on our own would do more harm than good. There's nothing "new" about you idea, and it does not promote anything resembling order within the world. Every nation is going to act in its best interest; there is no spirit of universal brotherhood. What you listen to is propaganda of the worst kind. France and Russia would place their Security Council vote regardless of any ideology; what they saw in Iraq was profit by preventing the US from attacking and that's precisely how they competed. They lost the diplomatic war and that's the only reason why we got their vote.

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Yes, true. Saddam and his sons from what I have gathered. As in any case of a tyrannical dictatorship, the Iraqi people are pretty much innocent bystanders... But they're in the middle of it regardless, and displacing saddam is going to require numerous smart bombs and a lot of Marines. Half a million Iraqi's won't die--atleast, not as a result of the US military.

Terrorist attacks only occur in nations that are complacent in fighting islamic fundamentalism within their nation.
Come on you know that is not true. Terrorists attacks can occur anywhere, al quada has made that abundantly clear. Islamic fanatics that scream for the destruction of entire populations should be the focus. What is the root cause of these fanatics? But this focus has gotten blurry with Iraq. We should be saying that Saddam must go because he funds and supports terrorism. We should make it clear we want Saddam dead. No pussyfooting around it.


Every nation is going to act in its best interest
Yes, true of course. But with a united nations you keep everyone in check. The idea is no rogue nations attempting to take over the world anymore. Do you think we would be better off without the united nations?

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Come on you know that is not true. Terrorists attacks can occur anywhere, al quada has made that abundantly clear. Islamic fanatics that scream for the destruction of entire populations should be the focus.
Nope. The reason further terrorist attacks haven't occured in the US, Britain, France, Germany, etc, is because our governments actively work to thwart possible attacks. This is aided, in large part, by community action.

Bali refused to work against islamic fundamentalism because it believed that it could not be a victim. It expected the fundamentalists to take their issues up with western powers; instead it learned the hard way that they care nothing about national boundaries but of the cultural influences that they see as deteriorating their society.
What is the root cause of these fanatics?
Cultural erosion. When nike, barbie, and mcdonalds challenge their narrow outlook, their only course of action is to lash out. Their movement is theocratic and elitist, because it refuses to accept that none of these things would be around if the people of their nation did not actively desire it.
But this focus has gotten blurry with Iraq. We should be saying that Saddam must go because he funds and supports terrorism. We should make it clear we want Saddam dead. No pussyfooting around it. Okay, I'm not sure whether you agree with me here. I want Saddam gone, with or without some spirit of international friendship. None of that stuff exists, and the only reason we are able to come to a point where we have a resolution against Iraq, is because of diplomatic bullying.
Yes, true of course. But with a united nations you keep everyone in check. The idea is no rogue nations attempting to take over the world anymore. Do you think we would be better off without the united nations? How? It's not keeping people in check, it's being exploited as a forum to focus on anti-US and anti-Israeli efforts. Many of the members of the UN are non-democratic regimes who oppress their populations actively.

Nope. The reason further terrorist attacks haven't occured in the US, Britain, France, Germany, etc, is because our governments actively work to thwart possible attacks. This is aided, in large part, by community action.
I hope you are right. I still get the feeling we are easily open to attack but maybe I am just paranoid.

Cultural erosion.
Yes, plus the fear of change.

I want Saddam gone, with or without some spirit of international friendship.
To clarify: I want international backing because I think it would be harmful to not have it. We would alienate the world and that is not what we want or need.

How?
The UN forces nations to see things in an international light. Some of the procedures need to become more hardlined but hopefully things will improve with experience.

All members of the armed forces of the US were notified that they will not be leaving the armed forces for at least a year. All members that were getting out no longer have that chance for at least a year. That from CNN today.

Terrorists have specialized in hitting areas that cause finanical harvoc. That was one of the reasons for 9/11 and for the previous attack on the WTC. It was viewed as a fincanical center for commerce.

In my personal opinion I am very sceptical. I wonder if the attack were not allowed to further political gain for something that the American people would not have stood for without such an action taking place. Bush has managed to do what Clinton could not. Establish a new branch of government. Between the two, I think we would have been better off with a medical branch.

It is suspicious that no more attacks have occured on US soil and that our Homeland security is now very effective against such attempts.