<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You miss the point rhyo - I won't say 'as usual' .
The point was (apparently too subtle) that Saddam is a 1) a nutty wackjob impredictable dictator that has used chemical weapons plenty of times when his back was not up against a wall, but just because he felt like it and 2) may not actually be in charge of the show at this point, or able to communicate with troops that had access to the weapons or 3) that those troops, after getting 30 million leaflets on what would happen to them if they used those weapons heeded the warnings. Or a likely, a combination of several of those points in some degree. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah right back at you "buddy". Disregard what I said in that PM, you wanted to make this personal then fine, you got it.
Ok, here we go. a) So if he's a wacky lunatic, why arn't US troops being doused in nerve gas? You're not making a convincing case that he would NOT use them, rather this seems to support that Saddam WOULD use them. b) Saddam might not be in control, but someone is. Given the nature of his government whoever is in charge is very likely a close trusted family member. Whoever is in charge they are certainly in communication with the troops defending Bahgdad, and according to yourself and US reports prior to the war the Republican guard units in Bahgdad are the most likely to have these weapons. 3) The leftlets don't seem to have stopped Iraqi forces across the whole country from fighting back against impossible odds or refusing to surrender. Seeing as Iraqi forces continue to stubbornly hold both Bahgdad and Basra there is still a lot of will to fight. With regards to WMD sites outside of Baghdad well you can move the weapons, but the equipment and structures needed arn't so easily moved, especially for large scale chemical production or any scale of nuclear production. Chemical weapons used against Iran is entirely differant to using chemical weapons against the US in 1991. The Iran-Iraq was was between 2 fairly matched opponants, neither of whom had thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal nor an army technologically and militarily vastly superior to the other. This is the situation in 1991: Saddam know's he's gone too far with the Kuwait invasion but holds onto the territory for as long as possible. He's doesn't use his stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons because he knows full well what the consequences would be: a massive coalition invasion of Iraq or possible nuclear relatiation. Saddam can use his WMD against Iran because Iran doesn't have a hugely superior army capable to driving straight to Baghdad in a matter of days and dethroning him. The coalition against Iraq in 1991 was purely to liberate Kuwait; Saddam had no intention of signing his own death warrent by attacking coalition troops with WMD and invoking a massive invasion of Iraq in retaliation. Now, with that invasion already having occured, he has nothing to lose.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Any one else think arguing this is purely academic? Once the fighting has stopped and a week or so has gone by, then start asking questions. This isnt really a debate any more. Its a quibble. We are arguing about factual information that will be factually revealed to us in due time. Even if someone were to happen to be convinced, what would it matter? The lucky guy would have an additional month of believing that there are(n't) wmds in Iraq before finding out the truth. When the war was still in question this was a legitimate debate. Its a bit posthumous at the moment.
1 vote here for a lock. Reopen it when we all know what we are talking about.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Apr 6 2003, 11:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Apr 6 2003, 11:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yeah right back at you "buddy". Disregard what I said in that PM, you wanted to make this personal then fine, you got it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, I guess you missed the smiley showing my in my previous post, as well as my PM'ed reply. I was going for a gentle jab in this quote if you look at the original post, and you act like it was a personal attack. It wasn't.
As for closing these topics purely on the basis of things being purely academic, we might as well not have a discussion forums (and I vote for that). Reopened, if only for Ryo to respond.
My apologies Nem, I was mistaken. Please accept my apologies, I was operating on around 4 hours sleep and didn't really know what was happening. I have alse recieved the PM and am replying to it now. Again, my apologies for acting in a missinformed manner.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Apr 6 2003, 09:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Apr 6 2003, 09:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, that's exactely what Mr.Rumsfeld promised time after time - a fast, clean and efficient "liberation" of Iraq... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, but Rumsfelds promises are as far out of scope as the expectations of the most mind-less anti-war people. Everyone with a brain can see that you dont take a country with a fast, clean and effecient liberation. You might take it with war, but war is neither fast nor clean. Sometimes it's effective, sometimes not, only time will say in this one.
WP: Missles with WMD found. <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47645-2003Apr7.html' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...5-2003Apr7.html</a>
Yahoo: WMDs found, turn out to be pesticides. <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030407/ts_nm/iraq_usa_cache_dc&cid=564&ncid=1473' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...d=564&ncid=1473</a> <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030407/wl_afp/iraq_war_wmd&cid=1512&ncid=1480' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...=1512&ncid=1480</a>
There have been documented exposures though. <a href='http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/5573683.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/new...raq/5573683.htm</a>
We'll find them. Its just a matter of time.
Oh- and Ry-Ohki- you're not allowed to post anymore. You've reached the optimum postcount. 666 :-P
That_Annoying_KidSire of TitlesJoin Date: 2003-03-01Member: 14175Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Apr 6 2003, 09:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Apr 6 2003, 09:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Go to california. That's about the size of Iraq, and it's roughly 163707 square miles (or ~300,000 square KM). Now, I want you to find a white powder that can be transported in any shaped container, in any size, and kept anywhere. Remember that white powder is being specifically hidden very carefully, as if anyone finds it, the owners will be killed. Now I want you to do it while a bunch of californians shoot at you, and you simultaneously try to protect millions of surrounding californians from being hurt by accident.
ps: the best part about the california analogy is that it's full of people with white powder shooting at the government everyday, and they find only the smallest fractions of the stuff, before most of it is sniffed or injected. And yet no one here says that we should defeat the drug trade in 2 weeks. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> two very good analogies.
WMD are something that people use in extreme dire last attempts, and even then they probably express concerns about doing so, contries with wmd probably (knock on wood) won't use them becuase if they do then you get the domino effect.
I personally see them as an overblown problem. Saddam may be a fanatic, but he isn't that big of one
Hussein is <i>not</i> a fanatic in the usual sense of the word. The Baht party is proclaimed socialistic - Hussein is an atheist who uses Islamic rethoric from time to time. He's a megalomaniac, a powerhungry thug, but not a fanatic.
A bit more info - alot of similar sites and issues seem to be getting jumbled together and confused by various news outlets, so try to keep it all mentally straight.
I can tell you that as a Marine, we did consider Soviet-made BM-21 (a modernized variant on the WW2 'Stalin's Organ' Katyusha trucks) batteries to be a chemical-capable weapon system. So there is certainly a possibility of it here. Hopefully more will unfold soon...
This info coming out is rather interesting. I'm still unsure as to if they exist why Saddam didn't use them but seeing as US troops are currently having free reign in Baghdad and the Republican guard seems to have broken apart there seems to be little chance of anyone left able to use them. It does seem almost suspicious that Iraqs forces broke so quickly at Baghdad when they're still resisting at Basra after 2 weeks. It could be that this is some kind of ploy by Saddam: lure as many US forces into Baghdad as possible then explode chemical/biological weapons hidden in the city or worse, a nuke. Of course that's pure speculation; it may be that after seeing their comrades slaughtered the Republican guard decided to cut and run.
Let's don't cheer too fast - the ring around Baghdad is barely closed, the current strikes are still part of the 'pinpoint' strategy. The fight around Baghdad is over - the fight in Baghdad is beginning, and we can all but hope that it'll end as fast.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It does seem almost suspicious that Iraqs forces broke so quickly at Baghdad when they're still resisting at Basra after 2 weeks<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, were resisting until yesterday: <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2925621.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2925621.stm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->BBC correspondents have reported little resistance in Basra, but British army sources say 300 Iraqi combatants died during the operation to gain control of the city. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Looks like the UK troops have finished that area off for the most part, and are now just looking for the leftovers. I don't know how tough the opposition was, as it seemed as though the royal troops were merely being discrete and trying to minimize casualties by chipping away at the paramilitary types more piecemeal. Not like Marines and SAS troops weren't man enough to take 'em - I trained with Royal Marines and they are some tough hombres indeed.
CNN is about to post a big update on this, their main page says, so we'll see what's up soon. I'm sure the Fox vehicles (the APC, not the Rupert Murdoch hysteria tv network) will be hauling **** into that area as we speak, and they are the ones with the gear and labs to say what's what for sure...
That_Annoying_KidSire of TitlesJoin Date: 2003-03-01Member: 14175Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Apr 7 2003, 09:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Apr 7 2003, 09:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hussein is <i>not</i> a fanatic in the usual sense of the word. The Baht party is proclaimed socialistic - Hussein is an atheist who uses Islamic rethoric from time to time. He's a megalomaniac, a powerhungry thug, but not a fanatic. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> which is why I was downplaying his "fanaticism" and you assumed that my meaning was fanatic in the islamic extremist, I make this assumption (I know I sholdn't, assuming is <b>bad</b>) from <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hussein is an athest who uses <i>Islamic rethoric</i> from time to time <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and he is somewhat of a megalomaniac, but he has stood up to the biggest/strongest contries in the world for a long time, so he can have those bragging rights as far as I'm concerned. as for being a powerhungry thug, after getting attacked in the gulf "police action" (it wasn't offical a war, same w/ this one) he seems content to rule over the parts of Iraq that he has control over, remember we openly attacked him this time.
Ok, so he's not a fanatic. What about his <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20030407/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_chemical_ali&e=6&ncid=736' target='_blank'>recently killed cousin?</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Believed to be in his fifties, al-Majid led a 1988 campaign against rebellious Kurds in northern Iraq in which whole villages were wiped out. An estimated 100,000 Kurds, mostly civilians, were killed.
Al-Majid also has been linked to the bloody crackdown on Shiites in southern Iraq after their uprising following the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites). Prior to that, he served as governor of Kuwait during Iraq's seven-month occupation of its neighbor in 1990-1991 — an invasion that led to the Gulf War.
Human rights groups had called for al-Majid's arrest on war crimes charges when he toured Arab capitals last January seeking to rally support against mounting U.S. pressure on Saddam's regime.
"Al-Majid is Saddam Hussein's hatchet man," Kenneth Roth, head of Human Rights Watch in New York, said at the time. "He has been involved in some of Iraq's worst crimes, including genocide and crimes against humanity."
Hazem al-Youssefi, Cairo representative of the opposition Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, described al-Majid as a standout in a regime of criminals.
Al-Majid was a warrant officer and motorcycle messenger in the army before Saddam's Baath party led a coup in 1968. He was promoted to general and served as defense minister from 1991-95, as well as a regional party leader.
In 1988, as the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was winding down, he commanded a scorched-earth campaign to wipe out a Kurdish rebellion in northern Iraq. Later, he boasted about the attacks, including the March 16, 1988, poison gas strike on the village of Halabja, where an estimated 5,000 people died.
During April 1991 peace talks in Baghdad, the Kurdish delegation leader, Jalal Talabani, told al-Majid that more than 200,000 Kurds lost their lives in the Iraqi campaign. Al-Majid replied that the figure was exaggerated and the dead were not more than 100,000, according to Arab press reports.
After Iraq's 1991 Shiite Muslim uprising was crushed, Iraqi opposition groups released a video they said had been smuggled out of southern Iraq. In the video, which was shown on several Arab TV networks, al-Majid was seen executing captured rebels with pistol shots to the head and kicking others in the face as they sat on the ground.
He was no less brutal with his own family.
His nephew and Saddam's son-in-law, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, was in charge for many years of Iraq's clandestine weapons programs before defecting in 1995 to Jordan with his brother, Saddam Kamel, who was married to Saddam's other daughter.
Both brothers were lured back to Iraq in February 1996 and killed on their uncle's orders, together with several other family members.
Syria and Lebanon ignored international calls to arrest al-Majid when he visited in January. He dropped scheduled stops in Jordan and Egypt — both U.S. allies. Egypt refused to receive him and the Jordanian government denied a visit was ever planned.
The big difference between a fanatic (like Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, or Hitler) and calculating criminals like Stalin or Hussein is the intention behind their acts - which doesn't justify them, it's just important to keep in mind why something was done because it gives one an idea of what could happen in the future.
Fanatics are doing something out of the deep believe that they're doing the right thing, no matter how wrong it's really is. Criminals do what they do because it serves their purposes. Hussein and his relatives didn't commit a genocide because they hated the Kurds, they did it because they threatened their power.
Both are incredible sinister motives, but fanatics will die for their believes. Criminals will cling to their power.
I just stuck my nose in here cause I saw that Nem posted... and as you may know my mission is to badger Nem
But unfortunatley I happen to agree with him... durn it. As far as WMD, did bush say we wanted to stop their "potential" use and or development of said weapons? bah and in any case they are gunna beat their chest about how the iraqies are free and who cares if we didnt find anything, we got rid of a bad bad bad man and look at how much better everyones lives will be.. blah blah blah.... sides its not like we cant just plantr a few mustard gas shells somewhere and blame it on them.. we do have black ops in the region after all
That_Annoying_KidSire of TitlesJoin Date: 2003-03-01Member: 14175Members, Constellation
edited April 2003
well then his cousin is a fanatic...but that wasn't the issue were discussing <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> but your argument was a solid one
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Apr 7 2003, 11:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Apr 7 2003, 11:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Fanatics are doing something out of the deep believe that they're doing the right thing, no matter how wrong it's really is. Criminals do what they do because it serves their purposes. Hussein and his relatives didn't commit a genocide because they hated the Kurds, they did it because they threatened their power.
Both are incredible sinister motives, but fanatics will die for their believes. Criminals will cling to their power. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> very very true, excellent point
I agree with Nem once again; BUT Stalin also falls into the category of 'fanatic'.
Anyway, that's not the topic. O.K. that's not the topic either, but still: Basra: I am pretty much sure that Basra is NOT under the control of the UK. The atrmy can claim ANYTHING but fact remains that just <i>some</i> troops invaded <i>some</i> parts of Basra. Far from being <i>taken</i>. If you listen to BBC just for 15 minutes it becomes clear that the generals exaggerate too much. And I am pretty much sure that in some days/weeks the USA will proclaim the final victory over Baghdad and Iraq, no matter what the situation will be. As for example Afghanistan was said to be 'pacified' one year ago <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
The point was (apparently too subtle) that Saddam is a 1) a nutty wackjob impredictable dictator that has used chemical weapons plenty of times when his back was not up against a wall, but just because he felt like it and 2) may not actually be in charge of the show at this point, or able to communicate with troops that had access to the weapons or 3) that those troops, after getting 30 million leaflets on what would happen to them if they used those weapons heeded the warnings. Or a likely, a combination of several of those points in some degree.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah right back at you "buddy". Disregard what I said in that PM, you wanted to make this personal then fine, you got it.
Ok, here we go. a) So if he's a wacky lunatic, why arn't US troops being doused in nerve gas? You're not making a convincing case that he would NOT use them, rather this seems to support that Saddam WOULD use them. b) Saddam might not be in control, but someone is. Given the nature of his government whoever is in charge is very likely a close trusted family member. Whoever is in charge they are certainly in communication with the troops defending Bahgdad, and according to yourself and US reports prior to the war the Republican guard units in Bahgdad are the most likely to have these weapons. 3) The leftlets don't seem to have stopped Iraqi forces across the whole country from fighting back against impossible odds or refusing to surrender. Seeing as Iraqi forces continue to stubbornly hold both Bahgdad and Basra there is still a lot of will to fight.
With regards to WMD sites outside of Baghdad well you can move the weapons, but the equipment and structures needed arn't so easily moved, especially for large scale chemical production or any scale of nuclear production.
Chemical weapons used against Iran is entirely differant to using chemical weapons against the US in 1991. The Iran-Iraq was was between 2 fairly matched opponants, neither of whom had thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal nor an army technologically and militarily vastly superior to the other. This is the situation in 1991: Saddam know's he's gone too far with the Kuwait invasion but holds onto the territory for as long as possible. He's doesn't use his stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons because he knows full well what the consequences would be: a massive coalition invasion of Iraq or possible nuclear relatiation. Saddam can use his WMD against Iran because Iran doesn't have a hugely superior army capable to driving straight to Baghdad in a matter of days and dethroning him. The coalition against Iraq in 1991 was purely to liberate Kuwait; Saddam had no intention of signing his own death warrent by attacking coalition troops with WMD and invoking a massive invasion of Iraq in retaliation. Now, with that invasion already having occured, he has nothing to lose.
1 vote here for a lock. Reopen it when we all know what we are talking about.
Well, I guess you missed the smiley showing my in my previous post, as well as my PM'ed reply. I was going for a gentle jab in this quote if you look at the original post, and you act like it was a personal attack. It wasn't.
As for closing these topics purely on the basis of things being purely academic, we might as well not have a discussion forums (and I vote for that). Reopened, if only for Ryo to respond.
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Take it for what it's worth.
Yeah, but Rumsfelds promises are as far out of scope as the expectations of the most mind-less anti-war people. Everyone with a brain can see that you dont take a country with a fast, clean and effecient liberation. You might take it with war, but war is neither fast nor clean. Sometimes it's effective, sometimes not, only time will say in this one.
WP: Missles with WMD found.
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47645-2003Apr7.html' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...5-2003Apr7.html</a>
Yahoo: WMDs found, turn out to be pesticides.
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030407/ts_nm/iraq_usa_cache_dc&cid=564&ncid=1473' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...d=564&ncid=1473</a>
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030407/wl_afp/iraq_war_wmd&cid=1512&ncid=1480' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...=1512&ncid=1480</a>
There have been documented exposures though. <a href='http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/5573683.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/new...raq/5573683.htm</a>
We'll find them. Its just a matter of time.
Oh- and Ry-Ohki- you're not allowed to post anymore. You've reached the optimum postcount. 666 :-P
ps: the best part about the california analogy is that it's full of people with white powder shooting at the government everyday, and they find only the smallest fractions of the stuff, before most of it is sniffed or injected. And yet no one here says that we should defeat the drug trade in 2 weeks. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
two very good analogies.
WMD are something that people use in extreme dire last attempts, and even then they probably express concerns about doing so, contries with wmd probably (knock on wood) won't use them becuase if they do then you get the domino effect.
I personally see them as an overblown problem.
Saddam may be a fanatic, but he isn't that big of one
He's a megalomaniac, a powerhungry thug, but not a fanatic.
<a href='http://www.msnbc.com/news/895392.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.com/news/895392.asp</a>
I can tell you that as a Marine, we did consider Soviet-made BM-21 (a modernized variant on the WW2 'Stalin's Organ' Katyusha trucks) batteries to be a chemical-capable weapon system. So there is certainly a possibility of it here. Hopefully more will unfold soon...
It does seem almost suspicious that Iraqs forces broke so quickly at Baghdad when they're still resisting at Basra after 2 weeks. It could be that this is some kind of ploy by Saddam: lure as many US forces into Baghdad as possible then explode chemical/biological weapons hidden in the city or worse, a nuke. Of course that's pure speculation; it may be that after seeing their comrades slaughtered the Republican guard decided to cut and run.
Well, were resisting until yesterday: <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2925621.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2925621.stm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->BBC correspondents have reported little resistance in Basra, but British army sources say 300 Iraqi combatants died during the operation to gain control of the city. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Looks like the UK troops have finished that area off for the most part, and are now just looking for the leftovers. I don't know how tough the opposition was, as it seemed as though the royal troops were merely being discrete and trying to minimize casualties by chipping away at the paramilitary types more piecemeal. Not like Marines and SAS troops weren't man enough to take 'em - I trained with Royal Marines and they are some tough hombres indeed.
CNN is about to post a big update on this, their main page says, so we'll see what's up soon. I'm sure the Fox vehicles (the APC, not the Rupert Murdoch hysteria tv network) will be hauling **** into that area as we speak, and they are the ones with the gear and labs to say what's what for sure...
He's a megalomaniac, a powerhungry thug, but not a fanatic. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
which is why I was downplaying his "fanaticism"
and you assumed that my meaning was fanatic in the islamic extremist, I make this assumption (I know I sholdn't, assuming is <b>bad</b>) from <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hussein is an athest who uses <i>Islamic rethoric</i> from time to time <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and he is somewhat of a megalomaniac, but he has stood up to the biggest/strongest contries in the world for a long time, so he can have those bragging rights as far as I'm concerned.
as for being a powerhungry thug, after getting attacked in the gulf "police action" (it wasn't offical a war, same w/ this one) he seems content to rule over the parts of Iraq that he has control over, remember we openly attacked him this time.
No need to convince me there...
No need to convince me there... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
well then I won't
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Believed to be in his fifties, al-Majid led a 1988 campaign against rebellious Kurds in northern Iraq in which whole villages were wiped out. An estimated 100,000 Kurds, mostly civilians, were killed.
Al-Majid also has been linked to the bloody crackdown on Shiites in southern Iraq after their uprising following the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites). Prior to that, he served as governor of Kuwait during Iraq's seven-month occupation of its neighbor in 1990-1991 — an invasion that led to the Gulf War.
Human rights groups had called for al-Majid's arrest on war crimes charges when he toured Arab capitals last January seeking to rally support against mounting U.S. pressure on Saddam's regime.
"Al-Majid is Saddam Hussein's hatchet man," Kenneth Roth, head of Human Rights Watch in New York, said at the time. "He has been involved in some of Iraq's worst crimes, including genocide and crimes against humanity."
Hazem al-Youssefi, Cairo representative of the opposition Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, described al-Majid as a standout in a regime of criminals.
Al-Majid was a warrant officer and motorcycle messenger in the army before Saddam's Baath party led a coup in 1968. He was promoted to general and served as defense minister from 1991-95, as well as a regional party leader.
In 1988, as the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was winding down, he commanded a scorched-earth campaign to wipe out a Kurdish rebellion in northern Iraq. Later, he boasted about the attacks, including the March 16, 1988, poison gas strike on the village of Halabja, where an estimated 5,000 people died.
During April 1991 peace talks in Baghdad, the Kurdish delegation leader, Jalal Talabani, told al-Majid that more than 200,000 Kurds lost their lives in the Iraqi campaign. Al-Majid replied that the figure was exaggerated and the dead were not more than 100,000, according to Arab press reports.
After Iraq's 1991 Shiite Muslim uprising was crushed, Iraqi opposition groups released a video they said had been smuggled out of southern Iraq. In the video, which was shown on several Arab TV networks, al-Majid was seen executing captured rebels with pistol shots to the head and kicking others in the face as they sat on the ground.
He was no less brutal with his own family.
His nephew and Saddam's son-in-law, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, was in charge for many years of Iraq's clandestine weapons programs before defecting in 1995 to Jordan with his brother, Saddam Kamel, who was married to Saddam's other daughter.
Both brothers were lured back to Iraq in February 1996 and killed on their uncle's orders, together with several other family members.
Syria and Lebanon ignored international calls to arrest al-Majid when he visited in January. He dropped scheduled stops in Jordan and Egypt — both U.S. allies. Egypt refused to receive him and the Jordanian government denied a visit was ever planned.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not quite off-topic - this guy is the one that used all those chemical weapons after all...
Fanatics are doing something out of the deep believe that they're doing the right thing, no matter how wrong it's really is. Criminals do what they do because it serves their purposes.
Hussein and his relatives didn't commit a genocide because they hated the Kurds, they did it because they threatened their power.
Both are incredible sinister motives, but fanatics will die for their believes. Criminals will cling to their power.
But unfortunatley I happen to agree with him... durn it. As far as WMD, did bush say we wanted to stop their "potential" use and or development of said weapons? bah and in any case they are gunna beat their chest about how the iraqies are free and who cares if we didnt find anything, we got rid of a bad bad bad man and look at how much better everyones lives will be.. blah blah blah.... sides its not like we cant just plantr a few mustard gas shells somewhere and blame it on them.. we do have black ops in the region after all
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
but your argument was a solid one
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Apr 7 2003, 11:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Apr 7 2003, 11:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Fanatics are doing something out of the deep believe that they're doing the right thing, no matter how wrong it's really is. Criminals do what they do because it serves their purposes.
Hussein and his relatives didn't commit a genocide because they hated the Kurds, they did it because they threatened their power.
Both are incredible sinister motives, but fanatics will die for their believes. Criminals will cling to their power. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
very very true, excellent point
Anyway, that's not the topic.
O.K. that's not the topic either, but still: Basra: I am pretty much sure that Basra is NOT under the control of the UK. The atrmy can claim ANYTHING but fact remains that just <i>some</i> troops invaded <i>some</i> parts of Basra. Far from being <i>taken</i>. If you listen to BBC just for 15 minutes it becomes clear that the generals exaggerate too much.
And I am pretty much sure that in some days/weeks the USA will proclaim the final victory over Baghdad and Iraq, no matter what the situation will be. As for example Afghanistan was said to be 'pacified' one year ago <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->