Try to understand why the sanctions are killing the Iraqis.
Iraq DOES buy as much food (up to the limits of the cash amount allowed) - however this is still NOT enough.

So what is killing the people:

1. Iraq wants to farm its own food - but can't. Why? Because the sanctions BLOCK farm equipment and pesticides.
2. Desert land needs water - only Iraq is not allowed to buy the pumps neccesary to irrigate the land (sanctions again)
3. People need clean water - unfortunately the sanctions block water treatment equipment - so disease spreads.
4. Medicines (esp. antibiotics) are banned (sanctions). So that dirty water is killing and diseases like cholera are rampant.
5. Medical equipment like X-ray machines are banned (sanctions) - so don't break a leg huh?
6. Iraq is not allowed to get CASH from the oil sales - this means that essential workers (like garbage workers, firemen etc) can NOT be paid...

and so on, and so on.

The sanctions goods list is ENORMOUS - and stupid.
Did you know that the basic item for personal hygene (soap) is a BANNED item??
Cloth material is a banned item
Leather is a banned item...

What are we afraid of?
That the Iraqi army will drop wet bars of soap in front of an allied army advance in the hope that the soldiers will slip up and break their necks???
Are we afraid that Saddam will develop cloth scud missiles and fire them from custom made leather launch pads???

If those 11 emtpy warheads were filled with the average Iraqi's drinking water - that would certainly constitute a biological weapon...

Skunk, you are simply unlearned on this issue. The several American vessels patrolling the Iraqi waters catch:
1. Outbound illegal (i.e. against the oil-for-food program) oil, and
2. Inbound weapons
All the time!! Every few days!!

If they are starving, why's that petty despot sending perfectly good oil out for something other than food and against UN Sanctions????

Maybe the people are starving - but it's the leader's fault. This idiot ran his country broke in the 80s building the regions second largest army (region = draw a line from India to South Africa, and pass through every country you cross). Now he only wants to buy more weapons. Throwing money and supplies at the Iraqi problem will not help.

Yes - but this is old (pre Gulf War) equipment. Magik said Iraq is still buying weapon from Russia.

And who helped SH build that army?

As for the current weapons purchases - every nation wants to be able to defend itself - Iraq is no exeption. And with the ever increasing aggressive rethoric from the US government, who can blame him?

Do you work for no money? Why do you expect the Iraqi sewage workers, Garbage workers etc to work for no cash? Iraq HAS sell oil outside the sanctions or the entire system will collapse - more civilians will die from sickness and disease if you don't pay these guys (for example).
Inbound weapons - well, do the police in your area have no guns at their disposal? What about the army? So why not Iraq?

[/QB][/QUOTE]

Well - recently he gave 5 times the normal rations to 'the people' - in case that the future delieveries may be impeded due to a possible war. ;)

Seriously - I don't support SH, or condone any of his actions. However I can't see any vaid reason for a US led attack on Iraq. And SH/Iraq isn't worse than a dozen other world leaders/contries

P.S. And please don't call me 'dude' (or anything similar). I'm a grown man and such names are very condescending.

[ 01-22-2003, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

<font color=orange>Seems to me a carring leader would first, buy food for his people and then if something were to be left over, be buying pumps and such that you keep going on about. Not weapons. Get a grip!</font>

Do you work for no money? Why do you expect the Iraqi sewage workers, Garbage workers etc to work for no cash? Iraq HAS sell oil outside the sanctions or the entire system will collapse - more civilians will die from sickness and disease if you don't pay these guys (for example).
Inbound weapons - well, do the police in your area have no guns at their disposal? What about the army? So why not Iraq?</font>[/QUOTE]Why not Iraq? Because Saddam invades his neighbors and has no qualms about using chemical/biological weapons in addition to conventional means. After the invasion of Kuwait, and his subsequent defeat, he was refused the right to purchase such items. His continued desire to purchase weapons is what starves his people and their economy.

If Saddam insists on spending his money on illegal items, maybe he should focus on pumps, the supplies for salinization, and the other items you mention as being necessary. He has been quite effective at smuggling, so why doesn't he do that? Because he doesn't want to. He prefers weapons. ;)

Even if you think the conventional weapons are ok, wouldn't it be better if he spent that money on food? You don't need an police force or army to protect a population that died from starvation. :(

Besides, Iraq isn't without the ability to protect itself. The purpose of leaving Saddam and part of the Iraqi army intact after the Gulf War was to avoid creating a power vacuum in the Middle East by leaving Iraq with enough of a military to protect itself from it's neighbors. At the height of his military power Saddam couldn't withstand the coalition, and since he's not being threatened by his neighbors, what exactly is the purpose of trying for a military build up over the past decade? It isn't what's needed by his country, but it is what he wants.

Skunk, Saddam holds his people hostage, so good hearted people like you will say life the sanctions. He doesn't care if they live or die, or he would spend what he could to feed them. If he'd co-operated after the Gulf War, the sanctions would have already been lifted.

5 extra rations of food for his people to prepare for a possible invasion? Sounds like he's sitting on some supplies, but only feels the need to give it to the civilian population when he hopes they'll fight an urban war for him.

If the sanctions were lifted today, what makes anyone think his focus on spending would change? ;)

[ 01-22-2003, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Do you work for no money? Why do you expect the Iraqi sewage workers, Garbage workers etc to work for no cash? Iraq HAS sell oil outside the sanctions or the entire system will collapse - more civilians will die from sickness and disease if you don't pay these guys (for example).
Inbound weapons - well, do the police in your area have no guns at their disposal? What about the army? So why not Iraq?</font>[/QUOTE]Simply answered: After SH and Iraq ignored the one sacred rule of the UN and attacked a neighboring SOVEREIGN (note: for the simple reason that it was selling oil too cheap and would not pay SH a $10billion bribe), the UN placed in under sanctions. The one governing body saw fit to place restrictions on the country for being a bad country only 10 years ago. No, they don't get an army, just like Japan after WWII.

You're probably one of these people who are actually HAPPY Germany never paid the tens of millions in remunerations assessed to it after Nurenburg.

If the '69 Cuba attack info comes from the same book that claims the US attacked itself with missles on 9/11, I'll have to throw it onto the conspiracy list.

The desire for objective news is fine, but objective should be just that...objective. The sources you choose to believe aren't objective simply because they are outrageous and contrary to the existing proof. In fact, they are more baised because they completely bypass facts in order to espouse a view.

<font color="#ffccff">I do believe that there are times when skunks are not varmits but actually <font color=lightblue>Trolls</font> in disguise [img]graemlins/spam3.gif[/img] </font>

Of course I am!
Any idiot can tell you that it was DIRECTLY as a result of the Treaty of Versailles (where Germany was had to pay HUGE war reparations) that led to the rise of the Nazi party and caused WWII.

Fortunately, the allies had learned from their mistake - and Germany is today a peaceful, democratic liberal nation.

You must remember.... who is the country with the biggest army in the world?.
Is obviously since 90's Iraq was bombed, they must defend, then they buy weapons.

In the book: "The big lie", the author has never said that the Twin towers attack was with missiles, else with airplanes, the attack with missiles was on the Pentagon, because the airplane never saw it.

Moreover, I prefer Eisen-Maiden-Shaide ;)

Sorry - I must have mislaid my Iraqi phonebook [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Yes - UN resolution 1441 was very cleverly formulated - because it is ofcourse impossible for Iraq to prove that they have disarmed 100%

P.S. And Magik - I read your post (EDIT: and now your pm [img]smile.gif[/img] ) in Cloudy's yesterday - I was my own fault for posting here when was 'semi-consious' [img]graemlins/reallyroll.gif[/img] ;)

[ 01-23-2003, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Ar-Cunin ]

You must remember.... who is the country with the biggest army in the world?.

<font color=aqua>China :D </font>

Is obviously since 90's Iraq was bombed, they must defend, then they buy weapons.

<font color=aqua>Since the end of the Gulf War the only Iraqi sites that have been bombed have been military sites, primarily illegal AA sites, bombed by coalition forces. The Iraqi's have been warned repeatedly not to "lock on" to coalition aircraft, or they will be destroyed.

The Iraqi's, at the height of their power, were no match for the coalition, and buying weapons in violation of the cease fire agreement with the UN isn't going to get them ready this time. They are not allowed to do it to do it.

His people are starving because Saddam is wasting money on military items instead of buying food. Which do you think he should buy? Is it ok to waste money on the military instead of feeding the population?</font></font>[/QUOTE]

[ 01-23-2003, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

The "attack with missles" is The Biggest Lie because it never happened. The Pentagon was hit by a commercial passenger plane , and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of witnesses who saw the plane hit.

The author of that book has no proof it was a missle, but there are thousands of witnesses who say it was a plane, and there is radar data that says it was a plane.

If you don't believe it was a plane because you haven't seen a video, then you can't believe it was a missle because you haven't seen a video, right? ;)

Of course I am!
Any idiot can tell you that it was DIRECTLY as a result of the Treaty of Versailles (where Germany was had to pay HUGE war reparations) that led to the rise of the Nazi party and caused WWII.

Fortunately, the allies had learned from their mistake - and Germany is today a peaceful, democratic liberal nation.</font>[/QUOTE]Maybe one day the same will be said of Iraq. :D

China.

<font color=orange>Here is a link showing the plane hitting the Pentagon. It was taken from a security camera at the Pentagon.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp

In the first frame notice the Airliner hitting the ground just before it hits the building. It's a the right side of the frame. So much for the missile hitting the Pentagon theory! What a bunch of poppycock! Shaide, please come up with better facts or find some place else to spew your venom!</font>

To be honest i couldnt see the plane in that.

I can see it, but it is hard to make out clearly, so I'll just have to trust the witnesses. ;)

I think that video could be made alot more recognizable by starting it 10 seconds earlier, slowing the frame rate down, and zooming in since it seems to be of pretty good quality to start with, but if you did that, then someone would say it's been altered. DIYDDIYD!

EDIT - After reading the small story, I see that only 5 frames are involved, so slowing it down won't help, but I still think they could be zoomed.

[ 01-23-2003, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

<font color="#ffccff">
Umm Shaide
None of those links proves anything you said.
The Geocities ones are useless flap from nobody's.
the ones not in english I cant read so don't know what they say
and the others that I can read are obviously slanted and biased
but still do not prove anyo of the incredible claims you made.

The Big Lie is a conspiracy nut theory, might as well put up links to
the Men in black, Roswell, The Grassy Knoll and the Black Helicopters too.

Out of curiosity, would It be accurate to call you Eisen-Dram-Shaide?
</font></font>[/QUOTE]That’s unkind Magik, Very Unkind Indeed.
I am absent for while and you decide to accuse me of morphing nym.
Shame on you.
May I suggest you investigate some literature on critical thinking?

China.</font>[/QUOTE]IIRC, China’s Army Is mainly conscripts who are paid rubbish.
Number's aint everything.

Most of their Air force is also Things like outdated MiG copies armed with mostly Cannon instead of missiles, Even their most adavanced planes are I belive Su-27 flankers which are outdated
I believe the navy has some very good Anti-ship missiles but Overall, Like Russia Before them, The Communist Armies are not very good now.
Conscripts don’t fight well (look at Vietnam)
IIRC the Chinese government use the principle of shoddy production, but huge amounts of them, tanks, Rifles, Planes.
This worked in WW2, Soviet union against the Nazis.
But now, what with Smart Warfare etc,

Technology is supreme, for example in the last war in Iraq US Abrams tanks took point blank hits from Iraqi tanks and still blew the enemy up.
I think it is indisputable that America has the most powerful army in the world today.

Just to clarify one thing before it gets out of hand...Dramnek/Eisenschwartz and Shaide are not the same person - or in any case, they're not posting from the same IPs. They both may share unpopular, some might even say extreme, views - but they are not the same person. Just to clear that up. ;)

Now let's do less mudslinging and more debating, by sticking to the topic, eh?

I don't think you'll get much debate on that, but shaide did ask who's army was the "biggest". [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font color="#ffccff">:::SNIP original post to Eisen,:::

No unkindness ment, you both seem to do the same kinds of things in your post. It was just a question after all.

Edit: This post edited because Memnoch was 100% right.</font> </font>

[ 01-24-2003, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

<font color="#ffccff">There were many eyewitnesses on the highway that the plane crossed (within yards of the pentagon itself) it even clipped some of the light posts along the highway on its way in. There is absolutely no doubt that it went in...Having visited the scene just hours after the instance I can attest to the light poles being sheered off.</font>

Just to clarify one thing before it gets out of hand...Dramnek/Eisenschwartz and Shaide are not the same person - or in any case, they're not posting from the same IPs. They both may share unpopular, some might even say extreme, views - but they are not the same person. Just to clear that up. ;)

Now let's do less mudslinging and more debating, by sticking to the topic, eh?</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#ffccff">My apologies Memnoch, This was all my fault, I threw the first mudball. </font>

<font color="#ffccff">My apologies Memnoch, This was all my fault, I threw the first mudball. </font></font>[/QUOTE]No worries dude, happens to all of us. You're a much more effective debater when you stick to the topic at hand and keep away from the personal stuff. Just a hint. ;)

<font color="#ffccff">There were many eyewitnesses on the highway that the plane crossed (within yards of the pentagon itself) it even clipped some of the light posts along the highway on its way in. There is absolutely no doubt that it went in...Having visited the scene just hours after the instance I can attest to the light poles being sheered off.</font></font>[/QUOTE]Aand as for fact on the 'missing' plane-parts in the wreakage - just look at the photos from the WTC - a plane goes in on one side and is totally destroyed. The same happened at Pentagon :(

But can you attest to a plane being there?

I don't doubt that there was one.. i just couldn't see it in that clip from that link. [img]smile.gif[/img]

But can you attest to a plane being there?

I don't doubt that there was one.. i just couldn't see it in that clip from that link. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Interesting theory, Djinn...what do you suppose happened to the plane then? Could it be possible that the US military shot it down? [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img]

Well even if they shot them down their would still be the wreckage of the plane.

It would be a tough decision to have to shoot down a commercial airliner that was being hijacked. And i don't know if they would or not but i suspect that they would and i am more than sure that the scenario has been talked about by the 'top brass' so to speak. And in all honesty shooting it down could very well be the right thing to do. But if they do that it would be best imo to make that detail public instead of keeping it classified.

Yes - but this is old (pre Gulf War) equipment. Magik said Iraq is still buying weapon from Russia.</font>[/QUOTE]Not sure on how this is relevant. I merely verified the current make up of Iraqi military power. Yes, they are pursuing weapons from Russia, also Chinese modified Russian equipment, and French.

Also 12 yr old equipment is not that old. The F-16 shot down in Bosnia was splashed by 60's tech Russian SAMs. The F-15, one of the premeire air frames flying today is 70's tech. The Colt M1911 .45 cal pistol, IMO one of the best handguns made, is .... 1911 tech. Old is not necessarily ineffective.

You still haven't answered my question - where could it be then? Surely it didn't disappear - the Bermuda triangle is quite a ways south of Washington. Let's follow your reasoning and assume it didn't crash into the Pentagon. Where is it then? Humor me with some hypotheses. [img]smile.gif[/img]

well my reasoning is different than what i believe Memnoch.

I believe a plane crashed into the Pentagon.. i just didn't see it in that frame by frame clip linked to above..

What could it have been?

Because surely a plane can't dissapear like you say.. so what happened to the plane? Was it incerated in the fireball of the explosion? Where was the tail or the piece of wing? Did you have a conclusive picture of it to show? Was the black box recovered from the wreckage of the plane at the Pentagon?

Well it could have been a missile launched and bought and paid for by Exxon.. The real global power. If UN is an international joke.. BP and Exxon are not..

Well it could have been a plane hijacked by four Islamic fundamentalists and piloted into the Pentagon.

i tell you what though.. it was a plane.

and if you look at the clip in that link and tell me that it was a plane.. then i will tell you that you were seeing things.. because no plane was in any frame of that video clip in the provided link!

[ 01-26-2003, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

When an aircraft flys into a mountain - it does so with enormous impact. The force tends to go through the aircraft, knocking pieces everywhere. Here you had an aircraft which had a 'cushion' (the building), allowing the fusilage to 'concertina'. Likewise, the aircraft parts become intermingled with the metal girders within the building - and then the whole thing is fused together by the ENORMOUS heat of the fire.

To my mind, it remains a definate possibility that there were no 'large' pieces left - of course I would expect some traces of the aircraft to be found...