RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Iraq releases Iranian prisoners it says didn't have(9 posts)

Iraq releases Iranian prisoners it says didn't haveCaptain Morgan
Mar 13, 2003 6:04 AM
How can anybody trust the Iraqi government? Iraq made an agreement with Iran to release their mutual prisoners of war dating back from their 1980-1988 war. Since 1988, Iraq has claimed they had no prisoners of war, but now I guess they are releasing them (FoxNews reported some 300 this morning on TV, I didn't catch the exact #).

Also, today Iraq has said that they are not all entirely opposed to the British "benchmark tests" U.N. proposal, with one exception. They are opposed to Saddam going on TV and admitting that he lied about having anthrax and mobile chemical/biological development labs. Iraq's problem is not with coming clean about these WMD, but just having to have Saddam admit that he lied about them. Unbelievable.
Did you hear this one about Iraq??PaulCL
Mar 13, 2003 6:55 AM
Two of my unrelated clients claim they saw/heard this on national news....that 100's of Iraqi soldiers tried to surrender to US forces in Kuwait. According to my hearsay, the US soldiers turned them back saying the war hadn't started YET. Apparently, the Iraqi's saw the increased survallience (spelling?) flights/bombing flights over the no-fly zone and assumed the war had started.

If this is even remotely true, it is a good omen for the war. Furthermore, the Iraqi communication with it's troops in the field must be prehistoric or non-existent.

Anybody confirm this one.....
Did you hear this one about Iraq??pdg60
Mar 13, 2003 7:04 AM
I read a BBC article that stated a number of Iragi soldiers surrendered to British forces.

I don't have a link though.
I think it was FrenchmenCaptain Morgan
Mar 13, 2003 7:05 AM
Just kidding; I couldn't pass up an opportunity to ridicule the French.

I heard that same story from a news report; however, I could not find confirmation on the internet.
Did you hear this one about Iraq??Alpedhuez55
Mar 13, 2003 7:38 AM
Here is a link to a story about that:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-surrender10.html

I guess a lot of the troops are tired and starving. They would probably look forward to being POWs just to get 3 meals a day.

On a larger scale the US is working on larger scale surrender of Iraq forces already:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/03/12/sprj.irq.iraq.secret.surrender/

It is to try to avoid possible Iraqi casualties save us from dropping some bombs that are not needed. There is not likely to be much resistance until we get near Baghdad.

Mike Y.
re: Iraq releases Iranian prisoners it says didn't haveAlpedhuez55
Mar 13, 2003 7:00 AM
"Iraq's problem is not with coming clean about these WMD, but just having to have Saddam admit that he lied about them. Unbelievable."
----------------------------
Gee, Saddam sounds a little like Bill Clinton there. It is one thing to lie to weapons inpectors (or a plaintiff's attorneys in a law suit) and another to have to go on TV and admit your faults to your nation.

Saddam wants his nation to think he has chemical weapons so they will fear him. If the people knew they would not be gassed, they would probably try to overthrow him. It is all the more reason for a regime change.

Mike Y.
What's the deal with these sudden scruples?czardonic
Mar 13, 2003 9:03 AM
We've all agreed that Saddam is a monster, though there remains disagreement about how to deal with him. Nonetheless, the people who didn't blink an eye when he was gassing the Iranians or the Kurds are suddenly up in arms about him lying!? What is the rationale there? Mass murder is one thing, but lying is where Conservatives draw the line?
That was a Conservative postCaptain Morgan
Mar 13, 2003 10:51 AM
It seems to me that you are advocating that the United States act as protectorate of the world. Furthermore, you are implying that the U.S. must react immediately to worldwide atrocities, otherwise future recourse will be withheld. This seems more like a knee-jerk Conservative stance rather than your typical Liberal stance.
Not at all.czardonic
Mar 13, 2003 11:28 AM
Let's remeber that Liberals are historically interventionists, and Conservatives are historically isolationists (to the extent that one can make such generalizations). If I'm not mistaken, it wasn't until the Cold War that Conservatives decided that military adventurism was a good idea.