[political] Clear me on WMD arithmetics

[shay Aluko]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Let's not let it escape notice that today Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay have been killed by US forces.

And so what?, that doesn't remove from the fact that the whole premise for the war is false. Absolutely pathetic

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
So which was it that US fought for in Serbia?

Is it US's war ??
If India tomorrow sends troop to Iraq, will it be India - Iraq war ?? :-?
I was thinking war is between Kosovo and Serbia ? And war is for land of Kosovo which Serbia tried to occupy.
US is helping one of them[Kosovo], is different story.[There are lot of fake/geniuine reasons available on net for support.]
AW next war in that region will be for "Greater Albania". Again it will be for land.
That time it will be intresting to see, who would be the supporters of Kososvo.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by shay Aluko:
And so what?, that doesn't remove from the fact that the whole premise for the war is false. Absolutely pathetic

If you have facts that the premise for the war was false, I'm sure there are many shrieking liberals on Capital Hill who would love to get their hands on your information. Since these facts don't seem to exist, what remains is merely conjecture and supposition.

[Eleison Zeitgeist]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

:roll:
I believe that you have Gun, should I shoot you on my belief.
AW nothing is 100% true.
And with all the information I have, it is likely that you have Gun.
May I shoot you ?? No, I dont want any one to interfere. I am powerful enough to buy/[not to care about] police or law & order.
May I shoot you ?

Yes -- especially if I really hated you, threated you and wanted to kill you by any means necessary; including using the gun which I likely have...
If a pyscho glares at you, makes threating gestures, approaches you with what seems like the intent to kill you, drawing a gun (which could be fake), even though you tell him to stop -- IMHO, it's fine if you shoot him...

[Mapraputa Is]

If a pyscho glares at you, makes threating gestures, approaches you with what seems like the intent to kill you, drawing a gun (which could be fake), even though you tell him to stop --
Sounds like Bush' administration, planning to attack Iraq...
IMHO, it's fine if you shoot him...
Oh. Forget what I said.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
If a pyscho glares at you, makes threating gestures, approaches you with what seems like the intent to kill you, drawing a gun (which could be fake), even though you tell him to stop --
Sounds like Bush' administration, planning to attack Iraq...
IMHO, it's fine if you shoot him...
Oh. Forget what I said.

C'mon Map, I know you haven't totally forgotten how to make rational factually based arguments. I've given up on some of the others, but I know you've still got it in you somewhere.

[Mapraputa Is]

C'mon Map, I know you haven't totally forgotten how to make rational factually based arguments.
But I am working on it. Gonna to apply for a job in Bush administration.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
C'mon Map, I know you haven't totally forgotten how to make rational factually based arguments.
But I am working on it. Gonna to apply for a job in Bush administration.

See, that's what I'm talking about. Now just throw in a completely off the wall analogy.

[Mapraputa Is]

Um. Yet another analogy? What's wrong with this one:
"If a pyscho glares at you, makes threating gestures, approaches you with what seems like the intent to kill you, drawing a gun (which could be fake), even though you tell him to stop -- IMHO, it's fine if you shoot him... "
Remind me, whose planes had been monitoring and bombing whom after Gulf War - American planes bombed Iraq, or were these Iraqis planes that bombed America?
Jason, honestly, do you really believe that Iraq was a threat to America?
[ July 23, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Axel Janssen]

my perspective:
- were there WMDs in Iraq? I never believed that and believe less today. Iraq was a country which potentially would have created WMDs, agreed. But they lacked strength after gulf war I and embargo.
- I see and saw extremly repressory regime of Saddam as enough reason for war. But most part of US population would see that as enough motif to put their soldiers at risk (which I understand).
- US-soldiers are dying in skirmishes even 3 month after wars end. They have started to talk about "guerrilla warfare", word they omited for month.
- in a german weekly I've read that biggest problem of Iraquis with US is lack of respect against Iraquis. So even the few Iraquis who are basically US-friendly (f.ex. people who have studied in USA) don't like US soldiers (during ocupation of Germany 1945-49, US soldiers were most popular of ocupation armies).
- support for Bush in US is diminishing.
- US is starting to talk with Berlin and Paris about supporting them in reconstruction of Iraq. Berlin and Paris will ask for their share in Iraq oil business.
- I hope soon there will be a solution for Israel-Palestine conflict, because that would ease a lot of tensions in the region.
@Ravish: There will never be a war about Great Albania, because Albania is simply much to poor country to start a war.

[Mapraputa Is]

From the article Ravish gave a link to:
"Q: Recent weeks have produced still more evidence to demonstrate the brutality of Saddam Hussein’s rule. Has that altered your position in any way?
"I was never in any doubt about the brutality of the Saddam Hussein’s regime, but neither government [the United States or Britain] ever based its case for invasion on brutality—because that’s simply no basis in international law for going to war just to change a regime. If we do decide that we are going to go to war to remove brutal regimes then we have a very busy time in front of us. We are not proposing to intervene to relieve the people of Zimbabwe of the repressive rule of President [Robert] Mugabe. We are not proposing to intervene in Burma where the military junta has run the country for longer than Saddam Hussein. We have allowed more people to be killed in the Congo civil war than were ever killed inside Iraq. If you are going to decide that brutality is a reason for military intervention, it must be a decision that is [made] multilaterally by an international forum. You cannot have individual nations such as the U.K. or the U.S. deciding for themselves which ones they are going to pick on next. One important reason is that if you accept that principle that countries can invade countries where you disapprove of the regime, the next time it may not be the U.S. or the U.K. that acts on that principle."
-- my thoughts precisely. To save a country from brutal dictator is a noble goal, but why not say so? Why to propagandize your own population and make it believe in ridiculous things like "Saddam's Threat"?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Jason, honestly, do you really believe that Iraq was a threat to America?

They were a state supporter of international terrorism. Therefore, they demonstrated that they were willing to achieve their national goals through support of international terrorist organizations.
They attempted the assassination of George H Bush. Therefore they demonstrated the will to attack the US abroad using terrorist means themselves.
They refused to account for weapons which UN inspectors knew they had, as well as actively seeking to thwart and hamper these same inspections. Therefore, it was likely they had the means to use weapons which they had already shown that they would not hesitate to use, and that research into such weapons was ongoing.
Iraqi forces had repeatedly fired upon international forces patrolling the no-fly zones over Iraq. Therefore Iraq had shown a continuous and current hostile intent towards the US, UK, and their allies, as well as the willingness to use direct military force against same.
So yeah, I'd say they were enough of a threat to be dealt with.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Why to propagandize your own population and make it believe in ridiculous things like "Saddam's Threat"?

Iraq had always been placed into the context of the greater War Against Terror. His contacts with and support to various international terrorist organziations were well documented. In 1991 Bush stated his goals for the war against terror. This didn't include just Afghanistan, and this didn't include just Al-Qaeda. As such, there was not really any convincing required.
Even despite the context of the war against terror, Iraq was a situation that had been fomenting since 1991. The obstructionist tactics carried out by France and Russia during this time were enough to make it evident that the UN route, already given 12 years to run its course, would never work. We tried to force it to a head and to have the UN face up to its responsibilities.
Instead, the obstruction continued and we were forced into a shooting war which might have been avoided had other UNSC members actually stood by the UN resolutions and done their job, instead of grandstanding, obstructing, making petty power plays, and doing everything to give Saddam Hussein the message that these UN members would continue to keep him in power and remain the status quo, to give him the message the UN would remain toothless and not hold him accountable. Had these same UNSC powers shown Hussein that the threat against him was credible, and that they were willing to back it up, in all likelihood we could have achieved most of our goals without having to start a shooting war.
If these powers really were interested in seeing the UN resolutions carried out (which all indications over the past 12 years demonstrate that they didn't want the resolutions to succeed), then they would have been smart enough to realize that a credible threat was essential to making the UN succeed. So either these powers were dangerously stupid, they wanted to retain their interests in Iraq at all costs, or they were more interested in influencing US foreign policy to prop up their own weakness.

[John Dunn]

AJ: (during ocupation of Germany 1945-49, US soldiers were most popular of ocupation armies).
According to my Dad they were pretty popular in 1951-1952 too, when he was stationed in Bomberg. (At age 19, he helped prevent a domestic uprising from the ranks of the Fraus and helped make sure the beer was kept up to its usual good quality. In regards to his stay there, he said that the Germans were awesome people and that he had the time of his life.
US is starting to talk with Berlin and Paris about supporting them in reconstruction of Iraq. Berlin and Paris will ask for their share in Iraq oil business.
Hmmm... Pardon my curiosity, but has Germany lost any men/women via military conflicts since WWII??

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by John Dunn:

he helped prevent a domestic uprising from the ranks of the Fraus and helped make sure the beer was kept up to its usual good quality.

Your dad probably was exagerating a little. That with the beers and fraus the germans succesfully manage themselves for centuries with or without Americans.

Originally posted by John Dunn:

Hmmm... Pardon my curiosity, but has Germany lost any men/women via military conflicts since WWII??

I think ultmatedly we've lost 6 soldiers in Afganistan in a guerrilly style ambush.
You've mentioned the big problem with check book diplomacy. Don't agree with all of US-american policy, but a lot of people here forget in all that "blood for oil" voicing that american soldiers are loosing their lives.
If europe troops had solved the balcan conflict alone, we would be in a better position, but then we were happy for US to help. At the start of the 90ties when we thought we were rich, it was much more acceptable to pay huge amounts of money than cofins of dead german soldiers at Frankfurt airport in context of gulf war I.
I can imagine that americans get very easily the feeling of doing the dirt work in a nato context.
[ July 23, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Remind me, whose planes had been monitoring and bombing whom after Gulf War - American planes bombed Iraq, or were these Iraqis planes that bombed America?

The monitoring was part of the UN agreement that Saddam sugned at the end of the Gulf War. The bombing was only done when the Irawis fired missiles at US planes. And the whole basis for the no-fly zones was that Saddam had used WMDs against the people under the no-fly zones!

[John Dunn]

Your dad probably was exagerating a little.
No. Actually I was exaggerating quite a bit.
My Dad is more succinct in his recall. He'd probably say: Ask him what he did in Germany and he say: I drank a lot of beer and met a lot of women, as their was a shortage of men. IMO, not a bad choice for one's time at 19...
Pardon my curiosity,
The reason I asked was that I genuinely wasn't sure if Germany had ever lost any of their soldiers, since World War II. (I know that their airmen flew in the Gulf War I, though. I remember seeing a news show that talked about how the Luftwaffe fighters went for counselling before fighting b/c the stigma of war was so great. I remember feeling very moved by this, as it pointed out the burden the younger German generations have carried for the Nazis' evil. (Quite different than the descendants of those that fled Germany to the U.S., after the War!!!)
It also made me feel a bit hard, as I felt that in a kind world everyone should feel pangs of uncertainty and dilemma when faced with the question of fighting in a war and yet we tend to brush it off quite a bit.
AJ: I can imagine that americans get very easily the feeling of doing the dirt work in a nato context. Well, in this context, I don't think the U.S. was expecting Germany to go in and get involved, no more than they expected Switzerland. ---> remember, I'd say most Americans feel proud at the contributions we've made in making Germany is a successful country. I'd say most people would just leave it alone...
Now as for the French gov't - that's another story!! Their current status stinks from the politics!!

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
@Ravish: There will never be a war about Great Albania, because Albania is simply much to poor country to start a war.

dunno .. but I read some where that Kosovo is planning to capture some part of serb and some part of some other country and want to make Greater Albania.
Might be that source was creating sympathy for serbs.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
It is highly likely that you are still armed.

Thats the point everythings end.
Its highly likely..
If you refuse to allow me to search you for a weapon can I shoot you to protect myself?
hmm.. I think we have discussed it earlier.
Cant we still believe "after the war" when we have seen everything and "all outcomes of war" that this war was not for what was projected.
It reminds me of "flat earth socity".

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Eleison Zeitgeist:

-- IMHO, it's fine if you shoot him...

IMHO, you should call police.
Are you saying there is no time to call police.
Then call all other neighbours/public to stop that pyscho.
Are you saying there is no neighbour/public available.
Kill him as there is no one to question you.

[Eleison Zeitgeist]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
my perspective:
- US-soldiers are dying in skirmishes even 3 month after wars end. They have started to talk about "guerrilla warfare", word they omited for month.

Since May 1, when Bush declared an end to major combat in Iraq, 42 soldiers have died from hostile fire....
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/24/sprj.irq.main/index.html
accidents don't count :-)
Lets keep things in prospectives, there were aprox. 600-700 murders in Chicago last year. Will the number of GI's killed be higher? While I don't like it when soldiers get killed, what are the alternatives.. Maybe the US should run IRAQ like Sadam ;-) So far, I think what we are doing is, albeit it's rough, it's the correct way.

[Eleison Zeitgeist]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

IMHO, you should call police.
Are you saying there is no time to call police.
Then call all other neighbours/public to stop that pyscho.
Are you saying there is no neighbour/public available.
Kill him as there is no one to question you.

police:
http://www.user.fast.net/~behanna/kasler.html
neighbours:
What happens if you live in a world where everyone looks out for his/her own best interest.. including yourself... will you entrust your life to someone who does not care for you.. but takes great pain to insure his own self-preservation???

[gautham kasinath]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
They were a state supporter of international terrorism.

- well, as an Indian, I believe Pakistan is also one such!!
So whats is USs' stand on Pakistan?? I dont see any love lost in thier relationship.
Further, pakistan has the potential, money ( US granted ) and technology ( US provided ) to build Nukes. They sure have built and tested 'em too!!
And guess what?? US is probably discreetly proud of that nation.
Why doesnt India attack and annhilate her neighbour - who has the potential to destroy her, who has tried time and again to destroy her ( history supports this. ), has been harrassed by proxy wars from Terrorists funded by her neighbour??
Well.. US in that point preaches *bi-lateral* talks..
GGGgggggggrrrr.. and the nerve US has to destroy a complete nation on a whim that it had WMD, of which there is no clue, what so ever.
I have always heard others saying bad things about Americans, but I have not believed them. Because, I have been in contact with them and some of my very close friends are Nationals of the US.
But, the diferential stand point that the US has towards everything.. justifies the bad things.
Lupo
Disclaimer :
This is just a personal opinion. No offence intended to anyone/anybody.

[gautham kasinath]

and Jason, I think that was a desperate attempt to justify the US initiated/led war on IRAQ.
and
lupo

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Eleison Zeitgeist:
police:
http://www.user.fast.net/~behanna/kasler.html
neighbours:
What happens if you live in a world where everyone looks out for his/her own best interest.. including yourself... will you entrust your life to someone who does not care for you.. but takes great pain to insure his own self-preservation???

You have given the answre...
I, why I, anyone can shoot you if you dont shoot him before...
Are we living in such period ??
Isnt it time to go back to jungle ??
AW atleast you agreed that everything was on belief.. no one has any proof.
And as per the theory, no one needs any proof to prove anything to anyone. As everyone looks out for his/her own best interest..
Then what is the need now after killing that pyscho[on the belief], to collect people to take him to graveyard ???

[Jason Menard]

ON Iraqi support for international terrorism:
http://www.idf.il/iraq/english/info13.stm
http://www.terrorismvictims.org/terrorists/saddam-hussein-iraq.html
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-01-10-hamas-iraq_x.htm
http://middleeastinfo.org/article2376.html
On Iraq's attempt to assassinate Bush Sr:
http://hnn.us/articles/1000.html
Interview with escaped Iraqi scientist:
http://www.larryelder.com/showpostings/interview.html

[R K Singh]

war of links ...

[Eleison Zeitgeist]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

You have given the answre...
I, why I, anyone can shoot you if you dont shoot him before...
Are we living in such period ??
Isnt it time to go back to jungle ??
AW atleast you agreed that everything was on belief.. no one has any proof.
And as per the theory, no one needs any proof to prove anything to anyone. As everyone looks out for his/her own best interest..
Then what is the need now after killing that pyscho[on the belief], to collect people to take him to graveyard ???

Welcome to the jungle. Believe anything you want. Believe there were no WMD. Believe Bush is a mass Killer... Believe when you become a martyr you will receive 12+ virgins... believe OBL is the greatest freedom fighter in the world.. Believe Arabs are the most peace loving people in the world... Believe the Jews are the ones who are trying to exterminate the world..... Believe you are "right"... JUST remember what you believe carries consequences. Otherwise, god speed... ;-)
"Sadamn has told me that we will be victorious.. Bagdhad will never fall. I shall keep on fight"
-- an Iraqi soldier moments before being shoot and killed.. while american armor rumbles to the capital.....

[Brian Wilson]

So what's WMD got to do with Java I thought this site was about learning Java code?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
AW I believe in facts, not in belief...

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
I try a lot to avoid these days to reply on the proof of so & so is the reason for attack on war....

Seems a bit contradictory. Usually when facts have been brought up there seems to be a reluctance to address them, instead trying to draw on some kind of analogy. Drawing false analogies and debating these analogies seems more like avoiding facts imho.

BTW if you cant understand this then lemme tell you a soldier is soldier. He joins army to die.

You are mistaken on this point.
[ July 24, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Mapraputa Is]

"On BBC we are watching scenes of Iraqis surrendering. My youngest cousin was muttering "what shame" to himself, yes it is better for them to do that but still seeing them carrying that white flag makes something deep inside you cringe."
Baghdad, Friday, March 21, 2003
http://www.dear_raed.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_dear_raed_archive.html

[Rufus BugleWeed]

US did not do so well in Kuwait oil contracts or Kuwait business in general.
Back to WMD...

GWB's State of the Union Adress...
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

Is hiding 500 Tons of sarin, mustard or VX nerve agent an easy task? One would have to believe it would be stored in big steel tanks in a bigger steel building. Iraqqi people would of had to maintained lights, fork lifts, drinking fountains and toilets in the facility.
Spy satellites would see a hole that size being dug in the ground, no?

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

Yes very true, but still I dont understand why some are not convinced that war is not fought to remove more than 20 yrs old dictatorship but for other reasons.

Because you and the other camp (including me) estimate a different impact of those reconstruction billions on the economy of the USA as a whole (and their partners of the war coalition).
I say they are insignificant for the economy as a whole. You say they are significant.
Some few companies will gain lots of contracts there. Is Bush government bribed by those companies who gain much? I don't think so.
[ July 24, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:

Back to WMD...

NEWSWEEK: COALITION FORCES only overthrew Saddam Hussein a few weeks ago. There must be a chance that weapons of mass destruction will still be uncovered?
Robin Cook: These are things that are not easy to conceal. For a nuclear bomb you need a nuclear reactor. For a missile you need a large factory. You won�t find them round in someone�s back garden. And all these synthetic claims about Iraq being a big country are irrelevant. If Saddam had the capacity to hit us with weapons of mass destruction, we would have found it. I did say it was quite probable that he had laboratory stocks of biological toxins and chemical shells that might be used on the battlefield, but it�s an awful long time after the end of the war [and] we haven�t found any of them, either. One other point is frequently overlooked. Chemical and biological weapons have a limited shelf life. All the materials that Saddam had in 1991 (at the end of the gulf war) would have degraded to the point of being useless long before 2003, whether or not he had destroyed them.

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
"On BBC we are watching scenes of Iraqis surrendering. My youngest cousin was muttering "what shame" to himself, yes it is better for them to do that but still seeing them carrying that white flag makes something deep inside you cringe."
Baghdad, Friday, March 21, 2003
http://www.dear_raed.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_dear_raed_archive.html

These are inevitable war-mechanics*. Same things happened during ussr invasion of CSSR in 1968.
I am confused. By no means expected an easy way out after the war, but not the mess that we are seeing now.
German weekly:
- Foreign Minister Fischer in Washington.
- They talk with him. He is important again (Fischer is egomanic, everybody knows, he knows, maybe he must be)
- he have never seen USA in such a weak state. Everyday reports about dead soldiers.
- worst case for Fischer would be retreat of USA from Iraq.
- fears nothing more than retreat of USA from Iraq.


---
* this is not an atrocity in the sense like thinks happened in eastern front during WW2.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
atleast not to live under some other country.

And you know this how? Prior miitary service?

please go through it... and if you want then revive it.

I'm not sure the point you are trying to get across with this link. Was this supposed to point to an example of silly analogies maybe?
You also know that US could not prove anything to international community.
Really? Seems there are several nations (ie the "international community") who are pretty convinced and helping us out. Some of them even have troops on the ground in Iraq, or will soon. But you are correct, there are several nations who would not be convinced to take care of the monstrous dictator under any circumstances.
Powell, Rumsfled have been proved wrong and the solid proofs they had has been called forged one.
What are you talking about? How have they been proven wrong? There is no proof that they were wrong, no matter how many times this mantra is repeated. Let's see the proof. (Note: Proof doesn't mean nutball Robin Cook or some other such person expounding on their own theories of the situation. Proof means incontrovertible evidence.)
What are you tryin to say, no they were right, they had proof or they have proof.
What proof.. if it could not get any support.
The premise you are proposing is that "if proof were sufficient, everybody would lend support". This is a false premise with no basis in fact.
Dont you think US has double standard.. wanna links to know what double standards.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Cant you see today, all oil maintenace contract are with US companies, cant you see oil selling rights are with US.
I would assume this is the case, in addition to British Petroleum, but I really don't know. And before the war they were all with French and Russian companies to my knowledge. Did you think after doing the heavy lifting we were going to allow the French and Russians to bid on these contracts? Of course not. But is there a point? Do you have specific information about which oil companies have received all oil contracts, if any, that have been distributed so far? And is this relevant to anything?
Did not US try to buy support for this war?
I have no idea if the US offered economic incentives to any countries in exchange for supporting them. Most likely it was made clear in some cases that we would have little use in continuing aid to nations who stood against our vital national interests. Do you think the French tried to buy support for their position on their trip to Africa? Do you have any evidence either way, or is this just more supposition?

[gautham kasinath]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
ON Iraqi support for international terrorism:
http://www.idf.il/iraq/english/info13.stm
http://www.terrorismvictims.org/terrorists/saddam-hussein-iraq.html
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-01-10-hamas-iraq_x.htm
http://middleeastinfo.org/article2376.html
On Iraq's attempt to assassinate Bush Sr:
http://hnn.us/articles/1000.html
Interview with escaped Iraqi scientist:
http://www.larryelder.com/showpostings/interview.html

- Well, If I wanted to fill in with reference links for Terrorism in India because of Pakistan, then I guess it will be a new topic by it self.
Anyway, any news website, of the Indian news content providers will have one terrorist attempt in any part of the country everyday.
So, when there is so much, *proof* do we go on and wipe pakistan off this face of earth??
Cheers
Lupo

[Eleison Zeitgeist]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

AW I believe in facts, not in belief...
you can believe there were/are WMD. Believe Bush is saviour of iraqis... Believe when you become a martyr still country will get oil+maintenace contract... believe OBL is not created by CIA.. Believe Pakistan is a democratic country... Believe the muslims are the ones who are trying to exterminate the world..... Believe others are "wrong"... JUST remember what you believe carries consequences.
[ July 24, 2003: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

he was "wrong":
http://www.foxnews.com/images/97025/13_23_200_uday.jpg
So was he:
http://www.foxnews.com/images/97025/13_45_100_qusay.jpg

if the leaders of a group of people can be soo wrong.. how many of their follower's beliefs can also be wrong? After all, in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king....
[ July 24, 2003: Message edited by: Eleison Zeitgeist ]
[ July 24, 2003: Message edited by: Eleison Zeitgeist ]

[Eleison Zeitgeist]

Originally posted by gautham kasinath:

- Well, If I wanted to fill in with reference links for Terrorism in India because of Pakistan, then I guess it will be a new topic by it self.
Anyway, any news website, of the Indian news content providers will have one terrorist attempt in any part of the country everyday.
So, when there is so much, *proof* do we go on and wipe pakistan off this face of earth??
Cheers
Lupo

Pakistan is not Iraq... If Pakistan acted like Iraq, Uncle sam would have issues... Also, US did not wipe Iraq off the face of the earth... many people were spared, many soldiers... some of which are currently targeting the very same troops that let them go.... In the olden days, when you lost, you got killed...

[gautham kasinath]

Originally posted by Eleison Zeitgeist:

In the olden days, when you lost, you got killed...

- well.. as I remember, in the olden days, if you lost you were slaved!! ( not saved )
May be thats what uncle sam is going to make of Iraq. Ofcourse, not as blantantly as the olden days.. but if you look @ oil export/import/pricing policies.. a new flavor of slavery would emerge, perhaps.

Pakistan is not Iraq..
- Yup! I agree.. Iraq was silently minding its own business. Trying to strengthen its economy. Pakistan is also silently minding it own business, messing with the Kashmiris, ( indians )
Cheers
Lupo