IRAQ Invasion Test....

[DR STRANGELOVE]

1. Q: What percentage of the world's population does the U.S. have?
A: 6%

2. Q: What percentage of the world's wealth does the U.S. have?
A: 50%

3. Q: Which country has the largest oil reserves?
A: Saudi Arabia

4. Q: Which country has the second largest oil reserves?
A: Iraq

5. Q: How much is spent on military budgets a year worldwide?
A: $900+ billion

6. Q: How much of this is spent by the U.S.?
A: 50%

7. Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the
essentials of life to everyone in the world, according the UN?
A: 10% (that's about $40 billion, the amount of funding initially requested to
fund our retaliatory attack on Afghanistan)

8. Q: How many people have died in wars since World War II?
A: 86 million

9. Q: How long has Iraq had chemical and biological weapons?
A: Since the early 1980's.

10. Q: Did Iraq develop these chemical & biological weapons on their
own?
A: No, the materials and technology were supplied by the US government, along
with Britain and private corporations.

11. Q: Did the US government condemn the Iraqi use of gas warfare
against Iran?
A: No

12. Q: How many people did Saddam Hussein kill using gas in the Kurdish
town of Halabja in 1988?
A: 5,000

13. Q: How many western countries condemned this action at the time?
A: 0

14. Q: How many gallons of agent Orange did America use in Vietnam?
A: 17 million.

15. Q: Are there any proven links between Iraq and September 11th
terrorist attack?
A: No

16. Q: What is the UN-estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf
War?
A: 35,000

17. Q: How many retreating Iraqi soldiers were buried alive by U. S.
tanks with ploughs mounted on the front?
A: 6,000

18. Q: How many tons of depleted uranium were left in Iraq and Kuwait
after the Gulf War?
A: 40 tons

19. Q: What according to the UN was the increase in cancer rates in
Iraq between 1991 and 1994?
A: 700%

20. Q: How much of Iraq's military capacity did America claim it had
destroyed in 1991?
A: 80%

21. Q: Is there any proof that Iraq plans to use its weapons for
anything other than deterrence and self-defense?
A: No

22. Q: Does Iraq present more of a threat to world peace now than 10
years ago?
A: No

23. Q: How many civilian deaths has the Pentagon predicted in the event
of an attack on Iraq in 2003?
A: 10,000

24. Q: What percentage of these will be children?
A: Over 50%

25. Q: How many years has the U.S. engaged in air strikes on Iraq?
A: 11 years

26. Q: Were the U.S and the UK at war with Iraq between December 1998
and September 1999?
A: No

27. Q: How many pounds of explosives were dropped on Iraq between
December 1998 and September 1999?
A: 20 million

28. Q: How many years ago was UN Resolution 661 introduced, imposing
strict sanctions on Iraq's imports and exports?
A: 12 years

29. Q: What was the child death rate in Iraq in 1989 (per 1,000 births)?
A: 38

30. Q: What was the estimated child death rate in Iraq in 1999 (per
1,000 births)?
A: 131 (that's an increase of 345%)

31. Q: According to the UN, how many Iraqis are estimated to have died by October 1999 as a result of UN sanctions?
A: 1.5 million

32. Q: How many Iraqi children are estimated to have died due to
sanctions since 1997?
A: 750,000

33. Q: How many inspections were there in November and December 1998?
A:300

34. Q: Who said that by December 1998, Iraq had in fact, been disarmed
to a level unprecedented in modern history.
A: Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief.

35. Q: In 1998 how much of Iraq's post 1991 capacity to develop weapons
of mass destruction did the UN weapons inspectors claim to have discovered and dismantled?
A: 90%

36. Q: Is Iraq willing to allow the weapons inspectors back in?
A: Yes

37. Q: How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992?
A: Over 65

38. Q: How many UN resolutions on Israel did America veto between 1972
and 1990?
A: 30+

38. Q: How much does the U.S. fund Israel a year?
A:$5 billion

39. Q: How many countries are known to have nuclear weapons?
A: 8

40. Q: How many nuclear warheads has Iraq got?
A: 0

41. Q: How many nuclear warheads has US got?
A: over 10,000

42. Q: Which is the only country to use nuclear weapons?
A: the US

43. Q: How many nuclear warheads does Israel have?
A: Over 400

44. Q: Has Israel every allowed UN weapon inspections?
A: No

45. Q: What percentage of the Palestinian territories are controlled by
Israeli settlements?
A: 42%

46. Q: Is Israel illegally occupying Palestinian land?
A: Yes

47. Q: Which country do you think poses the greatest threat to global
peace: Iraq or the U.S.?
A: The answer should be obvious by now

48. Q: Who said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"?
A: Dr. Martin Luther King,

Compiled by......Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago

 

[DR STRANGELOVE]

By the way, I am PRO-WAR, just thought this would be interesting to read...

 

[gardenweasel]

and the conclusion is

and the conclusion is

maybe it would be best for all concerned for saddam to take all the money he stole from the iraqi people and move to yemen......

 

[TheShrimp]

Good post TTM$$$.

It reflects something I was saying last week. It's not that Saddam isn't a bad guy. It's not that Iraq doesn't have weapons. It's not that he hasn't defied UN sanctions.

It's just that there are so many other nations that all have shit that's just as bad and we're not invading them. But, the administration has just completely focussed on Iraq and so, with all these other nations out there doing crap that's just as bad I really have to wonder what our motives are. I mean, who couldn't we make a case against?

 

[Blitz]

Re: IRAQ Invasion Test....

21. Q: Is there any proof that Iraq plans to use its weapons for
anything other than deterrence and self-defense?
A: No

Tell that to the people of Kuwait!!!

 

[Blitz]

Re: IRAQ Invasion Test....

34. Q: Who said that by December 1998, Iraq had in fact, been disarmed
to a level unprecedented in modern history.
A: Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief.

I work in a prison, I usually don't accept the word of a pedophile!!!

 

[acehistr8]

Re: Re: IRAQ Invasion Test....

Re: Re: IRAQ Invasion Test....

Originally posted by DR STRANGELOVE
21. Q: Is there any proof that Iraq plans to use its weapons for
anything other than deterrence and self-defense?
A: No

What a bunch of horseshit, why dont you tell the to the tens of thousands of Kurds he gassed and used other chemical weapons on in the late eighties and early nineties. So this statement is an obvious lie, as he has used these weapons on HIS OWN PEOPLE. I mean one question mentions the gassing of the Kurds, then another question mentions he would never use his weapons?

If he has shown the willingness to kill his own citizens, what do you think will happen if we allow him to develop a long or even short range missile program? You think he would even blink at the though of using them on his neigbours?

This question:

46. Q: Is Israel illegally occupying Palestinian land?
A: Yes

tells me all I need to know about that one sided, religously based nonsense. Some of these questions are either outright lies, or based on myths never proven. Like the US burrying alive 6,000 soliders who were attempting to retreat. You dont think the commander and his officers would be up on charges if there was even a shred of evidence they burried alive SIX THOUSAND people? I know for a fact the US condemned the gassing of the Kurds, and the UN estimated the number closer to 15,000 at the time.

This whole thing is load of shit that the more I read it reads like notes from an anti-Israel, "Hate the Jews, Hate the US" bible thumping pulpit speach.

 

[ferdville]

There are many non-sequiters and total inaccuracies in the above. In many cases, they are half-truths. for example, Scott Ritter. Scott has been on the Iraq payroll for some time now. Saddam has paid him to appear at various functions and spout his "opinions", because that is what they are. He has not been part of the inspection group in 5 years - just how accurate do you think he is with five years out of the loop? It is true that the US has supported Iraq in the past. It is no secret that things change rapidly over time in regard to world relations. We have been on both sides of the fence with Russia and Germany, too! What exactly does that prove! The security council unanimously agreed to order Iraq to disarm or face action. He didn't - the council changed its mind. Congress voted with only one exception. Now many of them have changed their minds, too. It happens - it is a fact of life. The same people that praised Clinton for bombing Iraq in 1998 and getting involved in Serbia have suddenly turned anti-war. It is just more of the pervasive and sickening playing of politics that has obscured the facts to the point that nobody know for sure what is going on. I am sick of it - I am sick of this.

 

[TheShrimp]

I don't think Saddam considers the Kurds his own people, even though they live inside Iraq's borders.

I also think that the Kurds were beginning an uprising, coincident with the Iraqis fight with the Iranis, when he used gas on them.

The Iranis also gassed the Iraqis. They were fighting each other in places using gas.

That's deterrence and self-defense. When they invaded Kuwait they did not use chemical weapons, at least partial evidence that they will not use them for aggression.

I have no idea why the #46 is in there. It certainly weakens the authors point and demonstrates his bias.

 

[Blitz]

The anti-war activists have started an uprising in this country, maybe we should gas them...

 

[TheShrimp]

They have???

Are they planning an armed overthrow of the government, too?

Very interesting.

 

[TheShrimp]

Long article about gassing the Kurds.

The point? Only that a lot of what we hear every day is necessarily true because people in authority say it. It's not necessarily false, either, but there are always competing interpretations of a lot of what we "KNOW".

A War Crime or an Act of War?
By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE

MECHANICSBURG, Pa. - It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking
smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the
Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator
who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them
on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or
disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is
a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently
brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in
March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush
himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja,
as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with
poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi
chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the
Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's
senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a
professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of
the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with
the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how
the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified
version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about
in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical
weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in
northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who
died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not
Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States
Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report,
which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know
basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds,
not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle
around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated
they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas -
which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used
mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at
the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as
often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A
much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference
to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas
might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought
up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of
American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has
much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of
gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct,
because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas
was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be
justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on
today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on
taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to
invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest
reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it
may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the
Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater
Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered
with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the
region.

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams
and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the
Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control
of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over
the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters
of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by
extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of
Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could
change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that
probably could not be challenged for decades - not solely by controlling
Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the
country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many
lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one
that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly
to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens
its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present
debilitated condition - thanks to United Nations sanctions - Iraq's
conventional forces threaten no one.

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that
Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people.
And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American
people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein
gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish
guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until
Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are
we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so
many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

 

[Jhpga]

Shrimp......why do you work soooo hard to make points that the Kurds of Northern Iraq werent Saddam's people.It is a stupid point that you have spent the last 2 weeks trying to make.Fact...Saddam gased Iraqi citizens.......Now get over it and move on with your life.........Everyone here knows you are antiwar...antibush and feel sorry that we are picking on Saddam...

 

[gardenweasel]

the guy did say

the guy did say

that one of the biggest mistakes he`s made was invading kuwait before he had a nuclear weapon.....whether you are for or against this action,that speaks volumes about the carnage that was probably avoided by pre-emptive israeli strikes on saddam`s french built nuclear reactor.....if those scuds landing in israel were nuclear weapons,we`d be living in a very different world today....

 

[TheShrimp]

JHPGA --

First of all, a 20 second Google search is not working soooo hard.

Second of all, read this again, and get back to me about what a "fact" is.

immediately after the battle the United States
Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report,
which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know
basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds,
not Iraqi gas.

Third, since you want to go personal with me, then here you go... it's pretty clear over the last couple of weeks that you seem to be incapable of holding anything in your head except that there is one group of people pro-war and one group of people anti-war. An "US" and a "THEM".

Some of us haven't made our minds up and might like to consider what you deem to be "facts" a little deeper before making a judgment that is going to lead to the deaths of innocent people.

How you concluded that I feel sorry we're picking on Saddam is beyond my comprehension. Actually, the removal of Hussein from power in Iraq is what I consider to be the best cause to go to war here -- primarily for help in stabilizing the region -- but also because we're not going to cave and he's not going to cave and his removal will pave the way for lifting sanctions that have damaged Iraqi citizens for too long.

But using fear tactics (like the mushroom cloud someone posted yesterday) and deception (like the constant yammering that saddam gasses his own people or touting the thin links b/w Iraq and Al Qaeda) aren't enough for me get behind an invasion.

As weasel said, there are good pre-emptive reasons for taking Hussein out. Get him out, and you shouldn't have to worry about nuke plants, chem factories or bio factories.

After their response to Bush's speech last night, I think that it's probably time to get in there. They're going to keep this up forever and Bush, contrary to what some think, has given a little diplomacy a shot (maybe not very skillfully, but he's at least given it a shot). As an American citizen, it's in our best interest not to bring the troops home, and then send them back at some future date, or leave them languishing in the desert.

What I feel sorry about is here is not Saddam, but that a lot of Americans aren't as conflicted as I am over something as serious as committing a first strike against another country when half the planet thinks its wrong. Shitty countries with shitty leaders are all over the place and taking one down, against the will of the UN and half the US population, is pretty nasty business for us to start getting involved in.

 

[AR182]

Shrimp,

First of all nobody in their right mind wants to go to war. But saddam is not in his right mind, he seems delusional. The blame for this war rests on the shoulders of saddam, that phoney bastard running france, & the spineless group of people located in the un.Bush has the balls to enforce the mandates that was set by the un.

Your last post said that half of the American public is against the war. According to today's polls it seems that about 33%are against the war.

I am curious,do you think that saddam does not have any links to terrorism of any kind ?

Were you against Clinton sending troops in, without the un approval, to fight against the ethnic cleansing in the balkins ?

And I agree with you that we should be able to debate this important issue without getting into personal attacks.

 

[TheShrimp]

Shrimp,

***we're really starting to go in circles here, covering old ground. But anyway, it's kind of fun...

First of all nobody in their right mind wants to go to war.

***Yes they do. They only act as if there is no choice.

But saddam is not in his right mind, he seems delusional. The blame for this war rests on the shoulders of saddam, that phoney bastard running france, & the spineless group of people located in the un.Bush has the balls to enforce the mandates that was set by the un.

***I think most of the blame rests on Saddam, and then a good part of it on Bush. The UN does not seem to think that what he's done, based on their inspections, justifies an invasion. Bush tells us otherwise. The reasons Bush is doing this are various, some more justified than others. WMDs are just a good selling point. We don't care about nations defying the UN anymore than we agree with their stance on this invasion.

Your last post said that half of the American public is against the war. According to today's polls it seems that about 33%are against the war.

***I've seen varying numbers. 50% might be too high now. It was running that high recently. Still, as I was just talking about, supporting a war now means a tremendously different thing than it did a month ago BEFORE we sent 300,000 troops over there. When we did that, it was on.

I am curious,do you think that saddam does not have any links to terrorism of any kind ?

***Not at all. I don't think that at all. He does. So do a lot of other leaders we're not removing. So do certain leaders we support. I don't think he had anything to do with 9/11. I guarantee that surprised him as much as it did us. I don't however, feel that he was upset by it, understandably.

Were you against Clinton sending troops in, without the un approval, to fight against the ethnic cleansing in the balkins ?

***Why do you guys just keep harping on this? Just so you can dismiss someone as a Clinton-loving dove or something? To uncover a contradiction in someone's thinking? Why? As I recall, active genocide was occuring in that region. BUT, This has absolutely no relevance to the issue at hand.

***Honestly, I was in grad school then and spent 10 hours a day studying, 8 hours a day drinking, and 6 hours a day sleeping. I remember none of the issues.

***I do know that a lot of people in the Balkans are glad he did what he did -- just like many Iraqis will be glad if we get rid of Saddam. Just like there would be a lot of happy people if Clinton had resigned for getting a hummer from a fat chick.

And I agree with you that we should be able to debate this important issue without getting into personal attacks.

***I still don't always refrain from it, but I try.

 

[Blitz]

Were you against Clinton sending troops in, without the un approval, to fight against the ethnic cleansing in the balkins ?

***Why do you guys just keep harping on this? Just so you can dismiss someone as a Clinton-loving dove or something? To uncover a contradiction in someone's thinking? Why? As I recall, active genocide was occuring in that region. BUT, This has absolutely no relevance to the issue at hand.

Your the one that brought up the UN and how Bush doesn't have their approval....Clinton never even tried to get UN approval, maybe that's THE mistake Bush made...

 

[TheShrimp]

No, I'm not the one that brought it up. The guy I quoted was the one who brought it up. This is much too difficult with some of you guys.

And even if I did bring up Bush and the UN it has nothing to do with Clinton and the UN. You guys just can't drop it with him.

 

[Blitz]

You can't use somebody's quote to support your arguement and then say "I'm not the one that brought it up."

And even if I did bring up Bush and the UN it has nothing to do with Clinton and the UN. You guys just can't drop it with him.

Why does Bush and the UN, have nothing to do with Clinton and the UN? Is it because that would not support your arguement?