OT: rumfeld's follies
Kent Paul Dolan
> Nope - WW I - Lawrence of Arabia, but now the
> US has the part of the Turks and the long highway
> between Kuwait and Bagdad has the part of the
> railroad.
Ummm, except that the Turks didn't have C5As to leapfrog
the intervening territory. The current plan of bypassing
the intermediate towns and going straight to Baghdad works
if you can establish airstrips along the way, something
the news has been saying for days is already underway. Air
cargo is an expensive way to deliver the goods, but it does
work and is less vulnerable to the fairly light, fairly
primitive weaponry of the sparse resistance than ground cargo.
xanthian.
LiamSlider
Actually the technique was first used in WWII. When the Nazi supply
lines to Africa were cut due to naval blockade the Germans airlifted the
supplies they needed, which allowed themn to extend that campaign
significantly.
--
"One day I woke up, and I realized I was never going to be normal...I
said so be it." --Hard Harry, Pump Up the Volume
The man, the music, the man pimping the music...
www.liamslider.com
William Brogden
news:a3eaa964.03032...@posting.google.com...
Do you seriously believe that they can airlift in enough fuel
to handle hundreds of tanks that get 0.5 miles per gallon plus
food, water and ammo? The C5As exist but how many
will it take? (God I love the Internet - single query results in:
"There are presently 81 C-5A and 50 C-5B aircraft in operation with the
USAF.")
I bet they are very busy getting gear to Kuwait and are not
many are available for flying gas to the field.
Lets hope that a solution is found quickly.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
James A. Robertson
<wbro...@bga.com> wrote:
>"Kent Paul Dolan" <xant...@well.com> wrote in message
>news:a3eaa964.03032...@posting.google.com...
>> "William Brogden" <wbro...@bga.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Nope - WW I - Lawrence of Arabia, but now the
>> > US has the part of the Turks and the long highway
>> > between Kuwait and Bagdad has the part of the
>> > railroad.
>>
>> Ummm, except that the Turks didn't have C5As to leapfrog
>> the intervening territory. The current plan of bypassing
>> the intermediate towns and going straight to Baghdad works
>> if you can establish airstrips along the way, something
>> the news has been saying for days is already underway. Air
>> cargo is an expensive way to deliver the goods, but it does
>> work and is less vulnerable to the fairly light, fairly
>> primitive weaponry of the sparse resistance than ground cargo.
>>
>
Let's notice that the stream of trucks from Kuwait to the front has
not been cut as well - the Fedayeen Saddam are a harrassing nuisance
in supply terms, not a large threat.
>Do you seriously believe that they can airlift in enough fuel
>to handle hundreds of tanks that get 0.5 miles per gallon plus
>food, water and ammo? The C5As exist but how many
>will it take? (God I love the Internet - single query results in:
>"There are presently 81 C-5A and 50 C-5B aircraft in operation with the
>USAF.")
>I bet they are very busy getting gear to Kuwait and are not
>many are available for flying gas to the field.
>
>Lets hope that a solution is found quickly.
>
>
>
>
>
>----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
>http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
>---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView
LiamSlider
Actually we have been dropping large fuel filled bladders ahead of
tanks. It's been part of the plan from the beginning, along with the
rapidly constructed pipeline.
Warren Stupidity
<jar...@gosmalltalk.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 07:04:11 -0600, "William Brogden"
><wbro...@bga.com> wrote:
>
>>"Kent Paul Dolan" <xant...@well.com> wrote in message
>>news:a3eaa964.03032...@posting.google.com...
>>> "William Brogden" <wbro...@bga.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Nope - WW I - Lawrence of Arabia, but now the
>>> > US has the part of the Turks and the long highway
>>> > between Kuwait and Bagdad has the part of the
>>> > railroad.
>>>
>>> Ummm, except that the Turks didn't have C5As to leapfrog
>>> the intervening territory. The current plan of bypassing
>>> the intermediate towns and going straight to Baghdad works
>>> if you can establish airstrips along the way, something
>>> the news has been saying for days is already underway. Air
>>> cargo is an expensive way to deliver the goods, but it does
>>> work and is less vulnerable to the fairly light, fairly
>>> primitive weaponry of the sparse resistance than ground cargo.
>>>
>>
>
>Let's notice that the stream of trucks from Kuwait to the front has
>not been cut as well - the Fedayeen Saddam are a harrassing nuisance
>in supply terms, not a large threat.
>
Are you sure of that? Would centcom admit that the harassing
activities are effective? We have anecdotal evidence (Iraqi civilians
feed hungry marines, see other threads and the 'net,) that indeed the
supply line is now disfunctional.
I think the situation is that the 'pause' (which of course is
completely denied by us officials,) is in fact due to the partial
disruption of the supply routes by the partisan units of the iraqi
army. The only real question is how partial is partial. If the reports
of food shortages are accurate, my guess is that 'partial' is very
serious, and that the front line units are at the moment not
maneuverable due to lack of fuel and ammunition, and that it is only
air power that is keeping those units out of serious harm from iraqi
ground forces with anti-tank weapons.
==
Mark Roddy
"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event like a
new Pearl Harbor."
-- Project for a New American Century,
-- the neocon cabal's blueprint for world empire.
http://www.newamericancentury.org
James A. Robertson
<wease...@nospam.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:26:59 -0500, James A. Robertson
><jar...@gosmalltalk.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>>
>>
>>Let's notice that the stream of trucks from Kuwait to the front has
>>not been cut as well - the Fedayeen Saddam are a harrassing nuisance
>>in supply terms, not a large threat.
>>
>
>Are you sure of that? Would centcom admit that the harassing
>activities are effective? We have anecdotal evidence (Iraqi civilians
>feed hungry marines, see other threads and the 'net,) that indeed the
>supply line is now disfunctional.
Supply lines are overextended, just as they were in 1944 when patton
made his run east from France. Any operational pause now is being
done for the same reason his was - too much <success> in getting out
front, and the simple inability of supply lines to catch up w/o a
break. It's not like this is a new problem in mechanized warfare.
The only difference now is the omnipresence of media
>
>
>I think the situation is that the 'pause' (which of course is
>completely denied by us officials,) is in fact due to the partial
>disruption of the supply routes by the partisan units of the iraqi
>army. The only real question is how partial is partial. If the reports
>of food shortages are accurate, my guess is that 'partial' is very
>serious, and that the front line units are at the moment not
>maneuverable due to lack of fuel and ammunition, and that it is only
>air power that is keeping those units out of serious harm from iraqi
>ground forces with anti-tank weapons.
>
>
>==
>Mark Roddy
>
>"Further, the process of transformation,
>even if it brings revolutionary change, is
>likely to be a long one, absent some
>catastrophic and catalyzing event like a
>new Pearl Harbor."
>
>-- Project for a New American Century,
>-- the neocon cabal's blueprint for world empire.
>http://www.newamericancentury.org
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
Warren Stupidity
<jar...@gosmalltalk.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:35:59 GMT, Warren Stupidity
><wease...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:26:59 -0500, James A. Robertson
>><jar...@gosmalltalk.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Let's notice that the stream of trucks from Kuwait to the front has
>>>not been cut as well - the Fedayeen Saddam are a harrassing nuisance
>>>in supply terms, not a large threat.
>>>
>>
>>Are you sure of that? Would centcom admit that the harassing
>>activities are effective? We have anecdotal evidence (Iraqi civilians
>>feed hungry marines, see other threads and the 'net,) that indeed the
>>supply line is now disfunctional.
>
>Supply lines are overextended, just as they were in 1944 when patton
>made his run east from France. Any operational pause now is being
>done for the same reason his was - too much <success> in getting out
>front, and the simple inability of supply lines to catch up w/o a
>break. It's not like this is a new problem in mechanized warfare.
>
>The only difference now is the omnipresence of media
>
Well that isn't quite the only difference is it? The other difference
is of course that we have this nasty partisan problem and patton by
and large didn't. That 'small difference' is the one that can spell
actual disaster for our forward positions. If we cannot clean up this
mess we may very well be forced into a truly ugly situation. And how
exactly do we 'clean up this mess'? The only way I know of is that we
start killing iraqis in large numbers from southern iraq to the edges
of baghdad. Where does that end up? Well it ends up with us having to
reinforce the reinforcements in order to keep a hostile and now
seriously motivated population under control, and it leaves us with no
exit strategy regardless of what happens in baghdad. Basically the
necon cabal in washington has put our soldiers and our nation into a
serious shithole from which there may be no viable political or
military exit.
James A. Robertson
<wease...@nospam.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 19:29:01 -0500, James A. Robertson
<snip>
>>
>>Supply lines are overextended, just as they were in 1944 when patton
>>made his run east from France. Any operational pause now is being
>>done for the same reason his was - too much <success> in getting out
>>front, and the simple inability of supply lines to catch up w/o a
>>break. It's not like this is a new problem in mechanized warfare.
>>
>>The only difference now is the omnipresence of media
>>
>Well that isn't quite the only difference is it? The other difference
>is of course that we have this nasty partisan problem and patton by
>and large didn't. That 'small difference' is the one that can spell
>actual disaster for our forward positions. If we cannot clean up this
>mess we may very well be forced into a truly ugly situation. And how
>exactly do we 'clean up this mess'? The only way I know of is that we
>start killing iraqis in large numbers from southern iraq to the edges
>of baghdad. Where does that end up? Well it ends up with us having to
>reinforce the reinforcements in order to keep a hostile and now
>seriously motivated population under control, and it leaves us with no
>exit strategy regardless of what happens in baghdad. Basically the
>necon cabal in washington has put our soldiers and our nation into a
>serious shithole from which there may be no viable political or
>military exit.
They aren't partisans exactly - there are numerous reports of the
populace of Iraq being shot by Iraqi army units. What we have is the
equivalent of the SS - as in the Battle of the Bulge - attempting to
make trouble in rear areas.
>
>
>==
>Mark Roddy
>
>"Further, the process of transformation,
>even if it brings revolutionary change, is
>likely to be a long one, absent some
>catastrophic and catalyzing event like a
>new Pearl Harbor."
>
>-- Project for a New American Century,
>-- the neocon cabal's blueprint for world empire.
>http://www.newamericancentury.org
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
asj
> They aren't partisans exactly - there are numerous reports of the
> populace of Iraq being shot by Iraqi army units. What we have is the
> equivalent of the SS - as in the Battle of the Bulge - attempting to
> make trouble in rear areas.
>
dream on....one telling point: i read that manu iraqis who were taking
food from the new assistance centers were chanting anti-american
slogans...how's that for ingratitude - LOL.
"Peter Arnett: U.S. war plan has 'failed'":
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/30/sprj.irq.arnett/index.html
why did we invade? WMD? Not according to some people:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,926082,00.html
"The Iraqis have thrown a wrench into the US plan through a variety of
means."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0331/p01s01-woiq.html
Since i'm in IT, this is most telling for me:
"Another problem for the US: weaknesses in high-tech command and
control."
"One of the most dramatic problems, according to a former Pentagon
strategist, is the failure of the much-vaunted military-technical
revolution."
"After 20 years of intense investment in computers and communications so
that we had 'information dominance' of the battlefield, the reports from
the units on the ground were that they didn't know where or even who the
enemy was, they couldn't get in contact with their own units, etc.,"
says the strategist. "And the problem is not just that radars can't tell
a friendly civilian from a fedayeen. Our systems are not finding hidden
equipment, either."
In addition, the US and its allies don't seem to have destroyed Iraqi
command and control systems - an early goal of the bombing campaign. It
is likely that runners and other forms of physical communication are
being used to direct Republican Guard units outside Baghdad as well as
other fighters in the south.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Are you sure of that? Would centcom admit that the harassing
> activities are effective? We have anecdotal evidence (Iraqi civilians
> feed hungry marines, see other threads and the 'net,) that indeed the
> supply line is now disfunctional.
Umm, we also have news reports of marines feeding hungry Iraqis, that
cuts both ways.
> I think the situation is that the 'pause' (which of course is
> completely denied by us officials,) is in fact due to the partial
> disruption of the supply routes by the partisan units of the iraqi
> army. The only real question is how partial is partial. If the reports
> of food shortages are accurate, my guess is that 'partial' is very
> serious, and that the front line units are at the moment not
> maneuverable due to lack of fuel and ammunition, and that it is only
> air power that is keeping those units out of serious harm from iraqi
> ground forces with anti-tank weapons.
Strangely enough, the "embedded" news reporters keep reporting the
consortium forces miles closer to Baghdad every few hours, so if there
is a "pause", it is a rather unfamiliar kind of entity. There were,
and presumably still are, efforts underway to remove Iraqi irregulars
who are ambushing and attacking along the supply routes, but this was
a fairly obvious possiblity once the strategy of leapfrogging minor
towns to converge quickly on Baghdad was chosen, long before the
invasion began. General Frank and others express no particular
surprise at the events to date, and I have no reason to doubt that
highly trained and experienced military commanders anticipated the
general tenor, though not of course the details, of what they now see
happening.
And it is worth remembering the by now ancient wisdom that no plan of
battle survives the first engagement unchanged, so ranting about that
fact of military reality as if it were some big surprise is a bit
disingenuous.
xanthian.
LiamSlider
> James A. Robertson wrote:
>
>
>>They aren't partisans exactly - there are numerous reports of the
>>populace of Iraq being shot by Iraqi army units. What we have is the
>>equivalent of the SS - as in the Battle of the Bulge - attempting to
>>make trouble in rear areas.
>>
>
>
>
> dream on....one telling point: i read that manu iraqis who were taking
> food from the new assistance centers were chanting anti-american
> slogans...how's that for ingratitude - LOL.
Actually those same people came back a day or two later, and explained
that they had been chanting those slogans because there were Iraqi
officials hidden in the crowd and they were afraid for their lives.
asj
> Actually those same people came back a day or two later, and explained
> that they had been chanting those slogans because there were Iraqi
> officials hidden in the crowd and they were afraid for their lives.
reference please?
..let the propaganda machine rollllll on.....
isn't is telling that despite overwheming military superiority and
complete air dominance, the propaganda continues that MOST iraqis are
against iraq's government (uh....yes they're afraid of hidden iraqi
officials even though the marines can actually protect them more than
the rapidly diminished iraqi soldiers), and not one single major city
(including the southernmost cities) has actually fallen to the usa after
so many days?
this is not to say the usa won't win...with so much firepower relative
to tiny iraq (18 million population! about the same as a big city) and
no BIG DADDY to continue supplying the iraqi guerillas, the outcome is
pretty much decided.
ahhh...god must be humiliated to see such pathetic goings-on among his
children!
James A. Robertson
>James A. Robertson wrote:
>
>> They aren't partisans exactly - there are numerous reports of the
>> populace of Iraq being shot by Iraqi army units. What we have is the
>> equivalent of the SS - as in the Battle of the Bulge - attempting to
>> make trouble in rear areas.
>>
>
>
>dream on....one telling point: i read that manu iraqis who were taking
>food from the new assistance centers were chanting anti-american
>slogans...how's that for ingratitude - LOL.
>
It's called "after 1991, we aren't sure you are here to stay. Better
to be safe in case the death squads return".
>"Peter Arnett: U.S. war plan has 'failed'":
>http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/30/sprj.irq.arnett/index.html
>
Arnett is in the power of the Iraqi govt. Nothing he says is to be
trusted; he is likely being coerced.
>why did we invade? WMD? Not according to some people:
>http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,926082,00.html
>
>"The Iraqis have thrown a wrench into the US plan through a variety of
>means."
>http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0331/p01s01-woiq.html
>
>Since i'm in IT, this is most telling for me:
>
>"Another problem for the US: weaknesses in high-tech command and
>control."
>
>"One of the most dramatic problems, according to a former Pentagon
>strategist, is the failure of the much-vaunted military-technical
>revolution."
>
>"After 20 years of intense investment in computers and communications so
>that we had 'information dominance' of the battlefield, the reports from
>the units on the ground were that they didn't know where or even who the
>enemy was, they couldn't get in contact with their own units, etc.,"
>says the strategist. "And the problem is not just that radars can't tell
>a friendly civilian from a fedayeen. Our systems are not finding hidden
>equipment, either."
>
>In addition, the US and its allies don't seem to have destroyed Iraqi
>command and control systems - an early goal of the bombing campaign. It
>is likely that runners and other forms of physical communication are
>being used to direct Republican Guard units outside Baghdad as well as
>other fighters in the south.
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
asj
> >"Peter Arnett: U.S. war plan has 'failed'":
> >http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/30/sprj.irq.arnett/index.html
> >
>
> Arnett is in the power of the Iraqi govt. Nothing he says is to be
> trusted; he is likely being coerced.
>
so anyone who does not agree with the YOUR version of events is somehow
in the power of the iraqi government...my! for a tinpot little
government running a tiny, munchkin country these guys sure do get
around!
perhaps it's because YOU cannot imagine the citizens of other countries
becoming PATRIOTIC about their country? c'mon now, everyone knows ONLY
usa citizens can be patriotic about their country...
btw, here is what nbc says (obviously covering their ass*s in this
climate of unbridled "patriotism" in our country, where anyone who does
not toe and parrot the government line is somehow "umpatriotic" and a
"traitor"):
"NBC News issued a statement supporting Arnett, saying that Arnett gave
the interview to Iraqi TV as a "professional courtesy" and that his
remarks "were analytical in nature and were not intended to be anything
more."
"Arnett also said "clearly this is a city that is disciplined, the
population is responsive to the government's requirements of
discipline," and "Iraqi friends tell me there is a growing sense of
nationalism and resistance to what the United States and Britain is
doing."
James A. Robertson
>James A. Robertson wrote:
>> >"Peter Arnett: U.S. war plan has 'failed'":
>> >http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/30/sprj.irq.arnett/index.html
>> >
>>
>> Arnett is in the power of the Iraqi govt. Nothing he says is to be
>> trusted; he is likely being coerced.
>>
>
>so anyone who does not agree with the YOUR version of events is somehow
>in the power of the iraqi government...my! for a tinpot little
>government running a tiny, munchkin country these guys sure do get
>around!
Are you assuming that people are free to speak their mind in the parts
of Iraq still controlled by Baath party? How naive are you? Arnett
may well believe the silliness he spouts; I'm basically cutting him
some slack. Likely slack he doesn't deserve; this is the guy who
invented the story of US use of nerve agents in Vietnam from whole
cloth, and also made up the "destroy the village to save the village"
quote.
>
>perhaps it's because YOU cannot imagine the citizens of other countries
>becoming PATRIOTIC about their country? c'mon now, everyone knows ONLY
>usa citizens can be patriotic about their country...
>
I'm talking about Arnett, not Iraqis.
>btw, here is what nbc says (obviously covering their ass*s in this
>climate of unbridled "patriotism" in our country, where anyone who does
>not toe and parrot the government line is somehow "umpatriotic" and a
>"traitor"):
>
>"NBC News issued a statement supporting Arnett, saying that Arnett gave
>the interview to Iraqi TV as a "professional courtesy" and that his
>remarks "were analytical in nature and were not intended to be anything
>more."
>
>"Arnett also said "clearly this is a city that is disciplined, the
>population is responsive to the government's requirements of
>discipline," and "Iraqi friends tell me there is a growing sense of
>nationalism and resistance to what the United States and Britain is
>doing."
There may be. But I trust nothing he says
asj
>
> >"Peter Arnett: U.S. war plan has 'failed'":
> >http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/30/sprj.irq.arnett/index.html
> >
>
> Arnett is in the power of the Iraqi govt. Nothing he says is to be
> trusted; he is likely being coerced.
oh, and maybe this guy from businessweek stationed with the 3rd infantry
division is being "coerced" too...my, my...we got iraqi "officials"
everywhere i guess! before ya know it, people here in the mainland usa
will be "coerced" too!!!!
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2003/nf20030331_0848_db071.htm
"The war in Iraq is now well into its second week, and hopes for a
quick, easy victory are gone."
"After a five-day pitched battle outside the city of An Najaf, lasting
longer than the entire ground campaign in the Gulf War, supplies of
Baretta 9-millimeter rounds and ammunition for M-16 assault rifles were
virtually exhausted. "We were pretty screwed," he recalls.
"Like many soldiers I've spoken with recently, Gogats was cynical about
the way the Army miscalculated Iraqi resistance. "We thought all these
towns were going to capitulate. We were waiting for a parade with
American flags. It really didn't go down like that."
asj
>
> Arnett
> may well believe the silliness he spouts; I'm basically cutting him
> some slack. Likely slack he doesn't deserve; this is the guy who
> invented the story of US use of nerve agents in Vietnam from whole
> cloth, and also made up the "destroy the village to save the village"
> quote.
>
like i said, perhaps this guy from businessweek (located smack dab in
the middle of the 3rd infantry div) was "coerced" too by the iraqis? -
ROTFLOL....if you think bush and his gang are not above spouting
propaganda (just like the iraqis) in order to advance this USELESS war,
then you're in big denial.
James A. Robertson
>James A. Robertson wrote:
>>
>> Arnett
>> may well believe the silliness he spouts; I'm basically cutting him
>> some slack. Likely slack he doesn't deserve; this is the guy who
>> invented the story of US use of nerve agents in Vietnam from whole
>> cloth, and also made up the "destroy the village to save the village"
>> quote.
>>
>
>
>like i said, perhaps this guy from businessweek (located smack dab in
>the middle of the 3rd infantry div) was "coerced" too by the iraqis? -
>ROTFLOL....if you think bush and his gang are not above spouting
>propaganda (just like the iraqis) in order to advance this USELESS war,
>then you're in big denial.
>
>http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2003/nf20030331_0848_db071.htm
read this:
http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/03/Pointspread.shtml
explains a lot about the difference between perception and reality.
>
>"The war in Iraq is now well into its second week, and hopes for a
>quick, easy victory are gone."
>
>"After a five-day pitched battle outside the city of An Najaf, lasting
>longer than the entire ground campaign in the Gulf War, supplies of
>Baretta 9-millimeter rounds and ammunition for M-16 assault rifles were
>virtually exhausted. "We were pretty screwed," he recalls.
>
>"Like many soldiers I've spoken with recently, Gogats was cynical about
>the way the Army miscalculated Iraqi resistance. "We thought all these
>towns were going to capitulate. We were waiting for a parade with
>American flags. It really didn't go down like that."
After we encouraged those people to rise up in 1991 - and they did -
and then leaving them out to hang - they simply are not willing to
trust us without a lot of proof. At this point, a lot of the
civilians are afraid of Saddam's thugs - they don't need the pain.
asj
> >like i said, perhaps this guy from businessweek (located smack dab in
> >the middle of the 3rd infantry div) was "coerced" too by the iraqis? -
> >ROTFLOL....if you think bush and his gang are not above spouting
> >propaganda (just like the iraqis) in order to advance this USELESS war,
> >then you're in big denial.
> >
> >http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2003/nf20030331_0848_db071.htm
>
> read this:
>
> http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/03/Pointspread.shtml
>
> explains a lot about the difference between perception and reality.
explains a lot why you have no idea what you're talking about......the
guy who wrote the businessweek article i gave you was interviewing the
soldiers IN the war and THEIR take on things...and you're giving me a
BLOG from an unemployed software engineer....
GOOD BOY JAMES! that's one way to win arguments...dredge out all the
unknown bloggers doing armchair psychology....
here's a good one though from an entirely new perspective:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/habibi/
> After we encouraged those people to rise up in 1991 - and they did -
> and then leaving them out to hang - they simply are not willing to
> trust us without a lot of proof. At this point, a lot of the
> civilians are afraid of Saddam's thugs - they don't need the pain.
we're giving them the pain, in the form of suffering, death, and
destruction by pursuing this USELESS, UNSANCTIONED WAR....
i guess you REALLY have no idea that people could be fighting back
because of their own patriotism, huh? it's just so much beyond the realm
of your capabilities for imagining?
reminds me of when the usa mistakenly bombed the chinese and swiss
embassies....there were actually articles here that were suggesting that
all the anger and demonstrations by the chinese people were somehow
managed by the government....ROTFLOL....i should have introduced them to
some chinese friends here in the usa, all of whom believed the usa
bombed the embassy deliberately and were VERY angry (chinese papers in
the usa showed all the dead and wounded men and women after the bombing
- something the usa media did not).
james, you should get a little more empathy into your life ...REALLY. i
would think that drumming for a little known, niche programming language
would make one more amenable to seeing the alternate side of the
mainstream...but, in your case, I GUESS NOT.
James A. Robertson
>James A. Robertson wrote:
>> >like i said, perhaps this guy from businessweek (located smack dab in
>> >the middle of the 3rd infantry div) was "coerced" too by the iraqis? -
>> >ROTFLOL....if you think bush and his gang are not above spouting
>> >propaganda (just like the iraqis) in order to advance this USELESS war,
>> >then you're in big denial.
>> >
>> >http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2003/nf20030331_0848_db071.htm
>>
>> read this:
>>
>> http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/03/Pointspread.shtml
>>
>> explains a lot about the difference between perception and reality.
>
>
>explains a lot why you have no idea what you're talking about......the
>guy who wrote the businessweek article i gave you was interviewing the
>soldiers IN the war and THEIR take on things...and you're giving me a
>BLOG from an unemployed software engineer....
Soldiers also see a limited perspective on a war - they see what's in
front of them. Tell me, if you worked in sales, and you were only
ever sent to the customers that disliked your product, what perception
would you get?
People at ground level aren't the best judges of the overall
situation.
Mark Thornton
"James A. Robertson" <jar...@gosmalltalk.com> wrote in message
news:fugg8vgohlua728ef...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:31:28 -0500, asj <ka...@xxx.com> wrote:
>
> >James A. Robertson wrote:
> >> >like i said, perhaps this guy from businessweek (located smack dab in
> >> >the middle of the 3rd infantry div) was "coerced" too by the iraqis? -
> >> >ROTFLOL....if you think bush and his gang are not above spouting
> >> >propaganda (just like the iraqis) in order to advance this USELESS
war,
> >> >then you're in big denial.
> >> >
> >>
>http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2003/nf20030331_0848_db071.h
tm
> >>
> >> read this:
> >>
> >> http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/03/Pointspread.shtml
> >>
> >> explains a lot about the difference between perception and reality.
> >
> >
> >explains a lot why you have no idea what you're talking about......the
> >guy who wrote the businessweek article i gave you was interviewing the
> >soldiers IN the war and THEIR take on things...and you're giving me a
> >BLOG from an unemployed software engineer....
>
> Soldiers also see a limited perspective on a war - they see what's in
> front of them. Tell me, if you worked in sales, and you were only
> ever sent to the customers that disliked your product, what perception
> would you get?
>
> People at ground level aren't the best judges of the overall
> situation.
>
Neither are we, nor anyone else working solely from public sources of
information. Despite the unprecedented level of media access, misinformation
(deliberate or accidental) remains common. For example the port at Umm Qasr
was reported 'taken' nine times before it was really under allied control.
Mark Thornton
LiamSlider
> LiamSlider wrote:
>
>>Actually those same people came back a day or two later, and explained
>>that they had been chanting those slogans because there were Iraqi
>>officials hidden in the crowd and they were afraid for their lives.
>
>
> reference please?
> ..let the propaganda machine rollllll on.....
My reference was ABCnews, an embedded reporter as a matter of fact...
>
> isn't is telling that despite overwheming military superiority and
> complete air dominance, the propaganda continues that MOST iraqis are
> against iraq's government (uh....yes they're afraid of hidden iraqi
> officials even though the marines can actually protect them more than
> the rapidly diminished iraqi soldiers), and not one single major city
> (including the southernmost cities) has actually fallen to the usa after
> so many days?
In Basra the civilians are rising up, against Saddam. Those disguised
forces there have dropped their disguises, and are now directly fighting
British forces mainly because they can't hold the civilian population
any longer. In Naseria (sp?) Iraqi civilians are helping Coalition
forces hold a crutial bridge against Iraqi military forces. I'd say that
this indicates that the civilians *are* behind us. As for Southern
cities not falling....we didn't stop to bother taking them, we're after
the big fish in the capitol.
>
> this is not to say the usa won't win...with so much firepower relative
> to tiny iraq (18 million population! about the same as a big city) and
> no BIG DADDY to continue supplying the iraqi guerillas, the outcome is
> pretty much decided.
Yes, without Saddam supplying his forces, and without fanatic to hold
civilians hostage to get family members to fight....yeah the outcome is
pretty decided. And will be different than you think it will.
asj
>
> Soldiers also see a limited perspective on a war - they see what's in
> front of them. Tell me, if you worked in sales, and you were only
> ever sent to the customers that disliked your product, what perception
> would you get?
>
> People at ground level aren't the best judges of the overall
> situation.
>
yes, they see a FIRST-HAND look at what's going on, not the ramblings of
a war-watcher on unemployment.
btw, what happened to your argument about arnett being "coerced"?
here's how everyone who does not toe the party line gets shafted:
"NBC, MSNBC terminate Arnett"
http://www.msnbc.com/news/893115.asp?cp1=1
bye, bye! mr. arnett!
asj
>
> >
> > this is not to say the usa won't win...with so much firepower relative
> > to tiny iraq (18 million population! about the same as a big city) and
> > no BIG DADDY to continue supplying the iraqi guerillas, the outcome is
> > pretty much decided.
>
> Yes, without Saddam supplying his forces, and without fanatic to hold
> civilians hostage to get family members to fight....yeah the outcome is
> pretty decided. And will be different than you think it will.
>
wtf did you just say?
please say with me:
the...rain....in...spain.....stays....mainly....in.....the......plain....
James A. Robertson
>James A. Robertson wrote:
>>
>> Soldiers also see a limited perspective on a war - they see what's in
>> front of them. Tell me, if you worked in sales, and you were only
>> ever sent to the customers that disliked your product, what perception
>> would you get?
>>
>> People at ground level aren't the best judges of the overall
>> situation.
>>
>
>
>yes, they see a FIRST-HAND look at what's going on, not the ramblings of
>a war-watcher on unemployment.
They see a small snippet of the overall picture. Take D-Day for
instance - the folks that landed at Utah beach:
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/BOOKS/WWII/utah/utah3.htm
had an entirely different view on June 6th to the one seen by the poor
bastards who landed at Omaha beach:
http://www.thehistorynet.com/wwii/bldesperatehoursomahabeach/
i.e., where you stand depends on where you sit.
>
>btw, what happened to your argument about arnett being "coerced"?
>
I said, I was willing to cut him some slack. However, based on his
past history of inaccurate reporting, I probably shouldn't be
>here's how everyone who does not toe the party line gets shafted:
>"NBC, MSNBC terminate Arnett"
>http://www.msnbc.com/news/893115.asp?cp1=1
It's not censorship to not be provided with a soapbox. I'm sure that
NBC, MS, and GE (parent company of NBC) got lots of complaints, which
explains the termination.
Free Speech does not mean freedom to say anything on someone else's
dime. You can say what you want; just don't expect to get others to
pay for it if it offends large numbers of people.
It's like offensive art - it's not censorship when people refuse to
buy it.
>
>bye, bye! mr. arnett!
LiamSlider
He was editorialising his interview, injecting his personal opinion
about the war into what should have been a straightforward interview.
That's bad journalism. Not to mention that what he was claiming, that
the invasion had failed, was a complete and utter falsehood.
asj
> >yes, they see a FIRST-HAND look at what's going on, not the ramblings of
> >a war-watcher on unemployment.
>
> They see a small snippet of the overall picture. Take D-Day for
> instance - the folks that landed at Utah beach:
>
i give you FIRST-HAND reports from our own soldiers in the field and you
give me an unemployed software engineer playing armchair strategist...
end of story.
>
> >
> >btw, what happened to your argument about arnett being "coerced"?
> >
>
> I said, I was willing to cut him some slack. However, based on his
> past history of inaccurate reporting, I probably shouldn't be
uh....read back on your own posts...you explicitly stated that he was
being "coerced"....i guess unless we toe the party line we are being
"coerced", huh?
>
> Free Speech does not mean freedom to say anything on someone else's
> dime. You can say what you want; just don't expect to get others to
> pay for it if it offends large numbers of people.
(1) i did not mention free speech at all...i guess you're getting touchy
about it as well eh?
(2) mr arnett i assume was on his free time (i'm assuming he's not a
literal "slave" or 24/7 indentured servant" of the network, eh?), and at
that point he IS free to say what he wishes.....if i were anti-war and
said so on national tv (on my own time and not as a representative of
the company), that does NOT give my company the right to fire me. you
are on SHAKY ground here, mr smalltalk...
you know, i ADMIT it when i'm wrong (mr anoncoward caught me once)...why
is it some people don't have the guts to actually admit when they are
wrong? and why is it people will sell out principles which i think we
both believe in (free speech, say?) when it is a hindrance to getting
their own views adopted?
mr robertson, do what's right, eh? this is a bit more than just saving
face.
Tom Welsh
<mtho...@optrak.co.uk> writes
>
>Neither are we, nor anyone else working solely from public sources of
>information. Despite the unprecedented level of media access, misinformation
>(deliberate or accidental) remains common. For example the port at Umm Qasr
>was reported 'taken' nine times before it was really under allied control.
>
this perception quite neatly.
A (UK) Ministry of Defence spokesman dressed in an immaculate pin-
striped suit is reading from a single sheet of paper.
His words are:
"The earlier disinformation was incorrect. Here is the correct
disinformation".
--
Tom Welsh
Tom Welsh
<li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> writes
>
>He was editorialising his interview, injecting his personal opinion
>about the war into what should have been a straightforward interview.
>That's bad journalism. Not to mention that what he was claiming, that
>the invasion had failed, was a complete and utter falsehood.
>
invasion *plan* had failed - not at all the same thing. The openly
admitted facts that coaltion forces have mostly been stationary
for several days, and that at least equal numbers of additional
troops are hastily being moved in theatre, are compatible with
that belief.
When you think about it, anyway, doesn't every *good* interviewer
interject personal opinions - at least in the way (s)he formulates
the questions? You can't just ask about "the facts" - you must have
some idea of what the relevant facts are, and in the very act of
deciding what is relevant you inevitably inject your own opinions.
I notice that Arnett did not go to Iraq to work for NBC. According
to the report I read, they hired him after all their own staff
left for safety reasons. Maybe that's a risk they should have
considered: if you hire someone with the maverick personality
to stay in the kitchen despite mounting heat, he may not behave
in a predictable way.
But there is a very, very serious - indeed fundamental - issue behind
all this controversy about media coverage. There are two assertions
that we in the West like to make:
1. We believe in democracy, human rights and freedom of speech.
Therefore we have free media, which are never censored or told
what to write. (This is an ideal that is never actually reached,
because proprietors influence editorial policy, governments
are empowered to issue gagging orders, etc. Nevertheless it is
an important ideal).
2. In time of war, some true facts must be suppressed and some
false statements (disinformation) must be propagated. This is
necessary as military operations cannot be conducted in the full
glare of publicity, and occasionally it is really, really
useful to be able to deceive the enemy.
These two assertions never coexist comfortably. But the situation
is worse than ever today, because:
* Worldwide networks come to be relied upon (depending on their
quality) in time of peace. People are inclined to believe
them in time of war too - unless or until it becomes obvious
that they are unreliable. If that happens, they may never be
believed again, in war or peace.
* We have an increasingly information-rich global society, in
which news is almost immediately available everywhere. You can't
deceive just the Iraqis, or just al-Qaeda - you deceive everyone
everywhere. Then there is the Internet - trying to extend
disinformation and censorship to that can only be done by
hacking, DoS attacks and other vandalism.
* You may be left with egg on your face if someone else,
perhaps equally powerful (to all practical purposes)
reveals the facts you suppressed and refutes your
disinformation.
* You get what you reward. If governments find publicity and
free access to information too embarrassing - which they do -
they will be cruelly tempted to resort to the strategy of
the leaders of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia in George Orwell's
1984 - in other words, make sure there is always a war.
Officially, at least.
I'll leave the last word to someone who gave these matters
a lot of thought.
"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government
without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not
hesitate to prefer the latter."
--Thomas Jefferson (1887)
--
Tom Welsh
asj
>
> He was editorialising his interview, injecting his personal opinion
> about the war into what should have been a straightforward interview.
> That's bad journalism. Not to mention that what he was claiming, that
> the invasion had failed, was a complete and utter falsehood.
>
like i said, if he was on his free time, then it's his prerogative to
inject his personal opinion or belief into any interview, and firing him
for that will get nbc in big trouble.
the invasion hasn't failed if by "failed" you refer to the ultimate
outcome...it just hit a speedbump, is all.....
on the other hand, it has failed miserably in the sense that it has
created a large amount of hatred in the arab world (and a large amount
of bad blood between us and our allies), in addition to threatening to
further destabilize the economy. remember that the ultimate goal here is
to prevent terrorism...i very much doubt creating hatred will go a long
way towards reaching that goal.
and so, i call that a f*cking failure.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/31/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm
Anxiety about the war began to nibble at the stock market last week when
it became clear that U.S. forces were facing much greater resistance
from the Iraqis than they had expected. This slowed down U.S. troops'
advance toward Baghdad and led to a number of U.S. casualties.
Economists have speculated that a prolonged war, by putting business and
consumer spending on hold, could lead the U.S. economy into a double-dip
recession. On Monday, David Rosenberg, chief North American economist at
Merrill Lynch, suggested in a note this may already be happening.
"The only factors that actually prevented the first quarter from
slipping into negative territory ... were the high starting point
heading into it and the pre-war spending and inventory building we saw
in January," Rosenberg wrote. "As far as the second quarter is
concerned, we are clearly losing momentum as we approach it."
http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/31/markets/recession/index.htm
Is this the second dip?
Recent economic numbers show contraction has already begun.
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Investors may not have to worry about whether the
economy might plunge back into recession for much longer. Increasingly,
it looks as though the plunge has already begun.
Mark Thornton
"Tom Welsh" <ne...@tom-welsh.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Zag2WIAx...@nildram.co.uk...
Most of the British media are showing signs of disenchantment with various
aspects of the (dis)information flow.
This article from a reporter at Centcom was entitled:
'You know less than when you arrived'
http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,925900,00.html
Mark Thornton
James A. Robertson
>James A. Robertson wrote:
>
>> >yes, they see a FIRST-HAND look at what's going on, not the ramblings of
>> >a war-watcher on unemployment.
>>
>> They see a small snippet of the overall picture. Take D-Day for
>> instance - the folks that landed at Utah beach:
>>
>
>
>i give you FIRST-HAND reports from our own soldiers in the field and you
>give me an unemployed software engineer playing armchair strategist...
>
>end of story.
Basically, you can't handle discussing the point I raised, so you
insist on ad homeneim attacks....
>
>>
>> >
>> >btw, what happened to your argument about arnett being "coerced"?
>> >
>>
>> I said, I was willing to cut him some slack. However, based on his
>> past history of inaccurate reporting, I probably shouldn't be
>
>
>uh....read back on your own posts...you explicitly stated that he was
>being "coerced"....i guess unless we toe the party line we are being
>"coerced", huh?
I said it was possible, not that he definitely was
>
>
>
>>
>> Free Speech does not mean freedom to say anything on someone else's
>> dime. You can say what you want; just don't expect to get others to
>> pay for it if it offends large numbers of people.
>
>
>(1) i did not mention free speech at all...i guess you're getting touchy
>about it as well eh?
>
>(2) mr arnett i assume was on his free time (i'm assuming he's not a
>literal "slave" or 24/7 indentured servant" of the network, eh?), and at
>that point he IS free to say what he wishes.....if i were anti-war and
>said so on national tv (on my own time and not as a representative of
>the company), that does NOT give my company the right to fire me. you
>are on SHAKY ground here, mr smalltalk...
The interview was part of his work. And in fact, if something in your
private life causes embarrassment to your employers, you may well be
out of a job. More than one blogger has been waxed for comments made
on their blog, outside of work.
>
>you know, i ADMIT it when i'm wrong (mr anoncoward caught me once)...why
>is it some people don't have the guts to actually admit when they are
>wrong? and why is it people will sell out principles which i think we
>both believe in (free speech, say?) when it is a hindrance to getting
>their own views adopted?
>
Because I don't believe I'm wrong. Tough concept for you, apparently
>mr robertson, do what's right, eh? this is a bit more than just saving
>face.
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
Luke Tulkas
"Mark Thornton" <m.p.th...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:b6a8ju$35ukd$1...@ID-139894.news.dfncis.de...
> http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,925900,00.html
This is funny reading. I mean...
"We don't discuss military operations,"
<<Excuse me?!? Oh, no sir, I only want to know the name of Tommy's pet
rabbit.>>
(the military, on message, always says coalition, so the reporters end
up repeating it, even though, duh, this is no coalition)
:-)
"This is the job: not to cover war, but to cover the news conference
about the war."
<<I knew that there was a catch! ;-)>>
At almost every briefing, the correspondent from Abu Dhabi TV, dubbed Mr
Liar by much of the press corps, manages to ask the "lie question": "Are
you practising a strategy of lies and deception, or have you just been
trapped by the Iraqi army?" There is speculation that he will end up as
a character on the Saturday Night Live show.
:-)
And there is a kind of competition to ask the WMD question: have any
weapons of mass destruction turned up yet?
<<No sir, but we found more than 300 anti-WMD kits, suits, gass masks,
the full "regalia"!>>
asj
> >i give you FIRST-HAND reports from our own soldiers in the field and you
> >give me an unemployed software engineer playing armchair strategist...
> >
> >end of story.
>
> Basically, you can't handle discussing the point I raised, so you
> insist on ad homeneim attacks....
funny, but it's you who aren't handling the points i raised and instead
give me facile URLs from armchair generals when i give URLs from people
who are actually in the midst of the fighting.
> >
> >uh....read back on your own posts...you explicitly stated that he was
> >being "coerced"....i guess unless we toe the party line we are being
> >"coerced", huh?
>
> I said it was possible, not that he definitely was
well, PLEEEEEZZZZZZ, back down now, then...first you say he's possibly
coerced...then, when it turns out that may not be the case, you attack
him and his politics...just say you may have spoken too soon (as in, put
your foot in your mouth)
> >
> Because I don't believe I'm wrong. Tough concept for you, apparently
>
> >mr robertson, do what's right, eh? this is a bit more than just saving
> >face.
>
no, it's not, i know that debating such stuff is useless because people
are pretty much dense headed when it comes to giving up highly-treasured
beliefs.
you speak better than jtk, but when push comes to shove, you are just as
mulish (and blind) about defending your position no mattter how
indefensible (which probably explains your attraction to smalltalk -
LOL)
Dr Chaos
> James A. Robertson wrote:
>> >"Peter Arnett: U.S. war plan has 'failed'":
>> >http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/30/sprj.irq.arnett/index.html
>> >
>>
>> Arnett is in the power of the Iraqi govt. Nothing he says is to be
>> trusted; he is likely being coerced.
>>
>
> so anyone who does not agree with the YOUR version of events is somehow
> in the power of the iraqi government...my! for a tinpot little
> government running a tiny, munchkin country these guys sure do get
> around!
>
> perhaps it's because YOU cannot imagine the citizens of other countries
> becoming PATRIOTIC about their country? c'mon now, everyone knows ONLY
> usa citizens can be patriotic about their country...
Serbians were patriotic and for Milosevec when they were bombed, but
now, most of them realize that his regime was criminal and disasterous.
> btw, here is what nbc says (obviously covering their ass*s in this
> climate of unbridled "patriotism" in our country, where anyone who does
> not toe and parrot the government line is somehow "umpatriotic" and a
> "traitor"):
The only difference is that in Iraq they call you unpatriotic, and
then they shoot you.
> "Arnett also said "clearly this is a city that is disciplined, the
> population is responsive to the government's requirements of
> discipline,"
that can be interpreted two ways of course
Dr Chaos
> reminds me of when the usa mistakenly bombed the chinese and swiss
> embassies....there were actually articles here that were suggesting that
> all the anger and demonstrations by the chinese people were somehow
> managed by the government....ROTFLOL....i should have introduced them to
> some chinese friends here in the usa, all of whom believed the usa
> bombed the embassy deliberately and were VERY angry (chinese papers in
> the usa showed all the dead and wounded men and women after the bombing
> - something the usa media did not).
The backstory i heard is that indeed the Chinese embassy was bombed
intentionally, but it was because they were assisting Serbia significnatly
with air defense and had taken pieces of the F-117.
LiamSlider
<snip garbage>
>
> And there is a kind of competition to ask the WMD question: have any
> weapons of mass destruction turned up yet?
> <<No sir, but we found more than 300 anti-WMD kits, suits, gass masks,
> the full "regalia"!>>
And why do you think so many Iraqi soldiers are equipped with those
things? Fear that we'll use VX? We don't use WMD first, that's been
national policy for decades (and Saddam knows this), so what WMD are
they preparing for? The only thing they can be preparing for is their
own use of such weapons.
Also *looking* for those weapons is not a big priority yet, that comes
after we take down the government and secure the country.
Luke Tulkas
"LiamSlider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in message
news:b6c5hk$3q5as$1...@ID-169482.news.dfncis.de...
> Luke Tulkas wrote:
> <snip garbage>
> >
> > And there is a kind of competition to ask the WMD question: have any
> > weapons of mass destruction turned up yet?
> > <<No sir, but we found more than 300 anti-WMD kits, suits, gass
masks,
> > the full "regalia"!>>
>
> And why do you think so many Iraqi soldiers are equipped with those
> things? Fear that we'll use VX?
Bingo! That _TOO_, yes. Is this so hard to comprehend? Scouts say "be
prepared" and I've read in this very NG several times that in a war you
have to expect everything / anything.
Mark Thornton
"LiamSlider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in message
news:b6c5hk$3q5as$1...@ID-169482.news.dfncis.de...
> <snip garbage>
> >
> > And there is a kind of competition to ask the WMD question: have any
> > weapons of mass destruction turned up yet?
> > <<No sir, but we found more than 300 anti-WMD kits, suits, gass masks,
> > the full "regalia"!>>
>
> And why do you think so many Iraqi soldiers are equipped with those
> things? Fear that we'll use VX? We don't use WMD first, that's been
> national policy for decades (and Saddam knows this), so what WMD are
> they preparing for? The only thing they can be preparing for is their
> own use of such weapons.
Rumsfeld has indicated an interest in using (non lethal) gas. They could
reasonably have been preparing for that. The Iraqis probably don't trust
their neighbours not use such weapons either. British and US troops had such
equipment before Saddam used gas in the 80s --- because they didn't trust
others to respect the chemical weapons ban. So the possession of this
equipment proves very little.
Mark Thornton
LiamSlider
You don't use atropine injectors for non-lethal gas.
LiamSlider
> "LiamSlider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in message
> news:b6c5hk$3q5as$1...@ID-169482.news.dfncis.de...
>
>>Luke Tulkas wrote:
>><snip garbage>
>>
>>>And there is a kind of competition to ask the WMD question: have any
>>>weapons of mass destruction turned up yet?
>>><<No sir, but we found more than 300 anti-WMD kits, suits, gass
>>
> masks,
>
>>>the full "regalia"!>>
>>
>>And why do you think so many Iraqi soldiers are equipped with those
>>things? Fear that we'll use VX?
>
>
> Bingo! That _TOO_, yes.
Then you are an idiot. The US does not use WMD unless we are attacked
with them first. This is, and has been, national policy since the 50's.
Saddam knows this.
Mark Thornton
> Mark Thornton wrote:
> > "LiamSlider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in message
> > news:b6c5hk$3q5as$1...@ID-169482.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > reasonably have been preparing for that. The Iraqis probably don't trust
> > their neighbours not use such weapons either. British and US troops had
such
> > equipment before Saddam used gas in the 80s --- because they didn't
trust
> > others to respect the chemical weapons ban. So the possession of this
> > equipment proves very little.
>
> You don't use atropine injectors for non-lethal gas.
True, but having indicated a willingness to discard part of the chemical
weapons ban, you could hardly blame the Iraqis for thinking he might
consider throwing away the rest. However attractive the use of 'non lethal
gas' may seem, I think reopening the question of chemical weapons was
extremely foolish. So while you may regret the fact that the ban did not
distinguish between lethal and non lethal agents, it should have left alone.
Once you open that door what stops someone from arguing that an agent like
mustard gas is not very lethal rather merely a nuissance and disabling
agent.
Mark Thornton
LiamSlider
Actually mustard gas can be lethal....however, there is also the fact
that the US does not produce biological weapons, nor nerve gas, in
quantity. What is produced is generally small amounts for use in labs to
test defenses for such agents. The US doesn't need nerve gas, or other
WMD other than nukes. And it certainly doesn't need such things to win
this war. Hell we wouldn't even need tactical nukes, we have the MOAB
which is as powerful as a small tactical nuke, while still being a
conventional explosive. With MOABs who needs WMD on the battlefield? The
fact is the only logical reason why Saddam's military is equipped with
full bio-chem hazard suits and atropine injectors is for when they use
their own WMD.
Richard Caul
<li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>Luke Tulkas wrote:
><snip garbage>
>>
>> And there is a kind of competition to ask the WMD question: have any
>> weapons of mass destruction turned up yet?
>> <<No sir, but we found more than 300 anti-WMD kits, suits, gass masks,
>> the full "regalia"!>>
>
>And why do you think so many Iraqi soldiers are equipped with those
>things? Fear that we'll use VX? We don't use WMD first, that's been
>national policy for decades
So the U.S. government actually opposed and opposes NATO's "flexible
response" doctrine from 1967? I always thought that it was us who
explicitly reserved the option of using WMD first.
But that's very interesting---could you perhaps produce a pointer to
some material supporting this?
RC
[snip]
LiamSlider
The policy of MAD applies not just to nukes you know. And while the
*Mutual* part hardly applies anymore, official policy is that US WMD are
possessed only as a deterent, to let everyone know that we'll use them
only if WMD are used against us first. In fact, the US has little
trouble with countries that have WMD only as a deterent, the countries
we have a problem with are those countries that want to use them as
barganing chips, for blackmail purposes (stay out of <insert conflict
here> if you don't want to lose a city), and to use as a way to just
plain slaughter people without cause. For instance, we have no problem
with Israel having nukes, they possess them as a deterent only, just as
we do. N. Korea and Iraq on the other hand... Now other NATO countries
*may* have differing opinions, but the US itself will never use WMD
first. That has been our policy since after WW2. Hell they (or at least
they used to) teach that in school.
Mark Thornton
>
>
> Actually mustard gas can be lethal...
Russians have recently demonstrated.
> that the US does not produce biological weapons, nor nerve gas, in
> quantity.
Have you finished getting rid of the enormous old stocks?
> conventional explosive. With MOABs who needs WMD on the battlefield? The
How do you define a WMD, and should not a MOAB qualify under that label? The
US currently seems to be prone to 'definitions of convenience' which don't
help its general case.
Mark Thornton
LiamSlider
> "LiamSlider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in message
> news:b6cin8$3vt22$1...@ID-169482.news.dfncis.de...
>
>>
>>Actually mustard gas can be lethal...
>
> Of course, but then so can most of the so called non lethal agents as the
> Russians have recently demonstrated.
True, but the US has been researching non-lethal agents far more heavily
than the Russians.
>
>
>>that the US does not produce biological weapons, nor nerve gas, in
>>quantity.
>
> Have you finished getting rid of the enormous old stocks?
What enormous old stocks?
>
>
>>conventional explosive. With MOABs who needs WMD on the battlefield? The
>
> How do you define a WMD, and should not a MOAB qualify under that label? The
> US currently seems to be prone to 'definitions of convenience' which don't
> help its general case.
I define WMD, as do most countries, as Nuclear, Biological, Chemical,
and Radiological weapons. High explosives don't rate.
Tom Welsh
<li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> writes
>Luke Tulkas wrote:
><snip garbage>
>>
>> And there is a kind of competition to ask the WMD question: have any
>> weapons of mass destruction turned up yet?
>> <<No sir, but we found more than 300 anti-WMD kits, suits, gass masks,
>> the full "regalia"!>>
>
>And why do you think so many Iraqi soldiers are equipped with those
>things? Fear that we'll use VX? We don't use WMD first, that's been
>national policy for decades (and Saddam knows this), so what WMD are
>they preparing for? The only thing they can be preparing for is their
>own use of such weapons.
>
of saying the coalition forces' precautions against MSD are defensive,
while the Iraqis' identical precautions are a sign of aggressive
intentions. Yet again, the explanation is "because they are bad and
we are good". That is a belief that is hard to accept, because all
human beings - without exception - are capable of both good and bad.
In any case, it is standard military/security procedure to prepare
defences against a potential attacker's capabilities, not what you, he
or anyone else says or thinks he will do.
I recognise that Saddam Hussein is a vicious, cynical dictator. Faced by
an overwhelming military superiority, wielded by an opponent with
massive chemical, biological and nuclear weapons capabilities, what
would such a dictator do? Of course he would prepare for all those
weapons to be used against him, as and when it was judged necessary.
As for US national policy, would a cynical dictator who views lying
as an everyday political tool trust his life to the word of an enemy?
Not likely.
Would you bet your life on *any* country's "national policy"? I know I
wouldn't.
--
Tom Welsh
Richard Caul
<li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>Richard Caul wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 07:49:31 -0600, LiamSlider
>> <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>>And why do you think so many Iraqi soldiers are equipped with those
>>>things? Fear that we'll use VX? We don't use WMD first, that's been
>>>national policy for decades
>>
>>
>> So the U.S. government actually opposed and opposes NATO's "flexible
>> response" doctrine from 1967? I always thought that it was us who
>> explicitly reserved the option of using WMD first.
>>
>> But that's very interesting---could you perhaps produce a pointer to
>> some material supporting this?
>
>The policy of MAD applies not just to nukes you know. And while the
>*Mutual* part hardly applies anymore, official policy is that US WMD are
>possessed only as a deterent, to let everyone know that we'll use them
>only if WMD are used against us first.
[snip]]
> Now other NATO countries
>*may* have differing opinions, but the US itself will never use WMD
>first. That has been our policy since after WW2. Hell they (or at least
>they used to) teach that in school.
You seem to be mixing things up here. My question specifically
referred to the NATO doctrine known as "flexible response". The North
Atlantic Council communique starting it can be found here:
http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/49-95/c671213a.htm
In paragraph 12, you will find the following passage: "This concept,
which adapts NATO's strategy to current political, military, and
technological developments, is based upon a flexible and balanced
range of appropriate responses, conventional and nuclear, to all
levels of aggression or threats of aggression."
Note that it specifically mentions nuclear responses as an option to
"*all* levels of aggression or threats of aggression." [emphasis
added]. Now the U.S. were a NATO member in 1967---I asked for pointers
to documents in which the U.S. government registered their protest
against this communique, either in 1967 or at any time after that.
Unless these exist, we should proceed from the assumption that the
U.S. government in fact agreed to this principle (which is not
directly related to MAD, as I am sure you will realize), which
therefore must be compatible with U.S. policy. The fact that they
taught you differently in school notwithstanding.
So it seems that at least since 1967, the U.S. (as a NATO member)
explicitly reserved the 'right' (whatever this means in a context such
as this) to a nuclear first strike. And this is of course after we had
actually *executed* the first (and so far only) nuclear first strike
in history.
> In fact, the US has little
>trouble with countries that have WMD only as a deterent, the countries
>we have a problem with are those countries that want to use them as
>barganing chips, for blackmail purposes (stay out of <insert conflict
>here> if you don't want to lose a city), and to use as a way to just
>plain slaughter people without cause. For instance, we have no problem
>with Israel having nukes, they possess them as a deterent only, just as
>we do. N. Korea and Iraq on the other hand...
But you do realize that this is very much a matter of perspective,
right? That, e.g., North Korea might very well consider their
possession of nuclear capabilities as a "deterrent", and that enemies
of Israel might have less confidence in their opponent's restraint
than you do? That indeed your "blackmail purposes" and "bargaining
chips" is just what "deterrent" looks like from the other side?
In fact, looking at the difference in U.S. handling of Iraq and North
Korea, many emerging nations with interests conflicting with those of
the U.S. might be learning two lessons: (1) Stay off the oil. (2) Get
nukes.
RC
Tom Welsh
<li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> writes
>Mark Thornton wrote:
>>
>>>that the US does not produce biological weapons, nor nerve gas, in
>>>quantity.
>>
>> Have you finished getting rid of the enormous old stocks?
>
>What enormous old stocks?
>
Five minutes with Google produced the following two documents.
"USA: The Start-3 treaty limits the nuclear stockpile to 2,500; the
second largest chemical stockpile, about 30,000 tons in 1996 being
slowly destroyed; no biological weapons since 1972 but in 2001 it has
refused to ratify the protocol for verification..."
http://freelebanon.org/articles/a371.htm
"USA:
Has the second largest arsenal of chemical weapons in the world,
consisting of ~31’000 tons of chemicals, and 3.6 million grenades [14].
The chemical weapons contain about 12’000 tons of agents, and 19’000
tons are in bulk storage". (Figures from US Defense Intelligence
Agency). These include Tabun, Sarin, VX and binary nerve agents.
"Since 1985, the US Army’s cost estimate for the stockpile disposal
program has increased from estimates in 1985 of $1.7 billion to $15.7
billion as of today, and its projected completion date has slipped from
1994 to 2007 [15, 11]. The non-stockpile disposal program is currently
projected to cost $15.1 billion - nearly the cost of the stockpile
disposal program - and will take until 2033 to complete [11]".
http://lxmi.mi.infn.it/~landnet/Biosec/harigel.pdf
--
Tom Welsh
Mark Thornton
"Richard Caul" <n...@email.ever> wrote in message
news:tkoj8v42e7944j96f...@4ax.com...
> In fact, looking at the difference in U.S. handling of Iraq and North
> Korea, many emerging nations with interests conflicting with those of
> the U.S. might be learning two lessons: (1) Stay off the oil. (2) Get
> nukes.
>
While that may not be the lesson that US intends, one could hardly be
surprised if that was the lesson taken by countries such as Iran.
Mark Thornton
LiamSlider
> In article <b6coef$402kn$1...@ID-169482.news.dfncis.de>, LiamSlider
> <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> writes
>
>>Mark Thornton wrote:
>>
>>>>that the US does not produce biological weapons, nor nerve gas, in
>>>>quantity.
>>>
>>>Have you finished getting rid of the enormous old stocks?
>>
>>What enormous old stocks?
>>
>
>
> Five minutes with Google produced the following two documents.
Ok so it's clear we don't need those weapons any more and are disposing
of them as fast as we can. We certainly wouldn't use this stuff. it's
not currently an arsonal, just garbage awaiting destruction.
Mark Thornton
> Tom Welsh wrote:
> > In article <b6coef$402kn$1...@ID-169482.news.dfncis.de>, LiamSlider
> > <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> writes
> >
> >
>
> Ok so it's clear we don't need those weapons any more and are disposing
> of them as fast as we can. We certainly wouldn't use this stuff. it's
> not currently an arsonal, just garbage awaiting destruction.
>
However so long as it exists, normal military practice for an opponent would
be to prepare for the possibility that it might be used. The assurances of
politicians are worthless in this context.
Mark Thornton
LiamSlider
Yes but assuming that we would use them is assuming quite a lot about
the USA. It's not as if we are a cold hearted dictatorship here. And
we're going out of our way to avoid civilian casualties....use of WMD
would run counter to that caution. Face it, Saddam has equipped his
troops with gear to protect them from nerve gas because he plans to use
it against Coalition Forces, or to use it against his own people and try
to blame us. That is the most likely answer in this case, especially
taking into account US history, Iraqi history, and the current political
and tactical situations. This is, simply, the most logical explanation.
John Palmer
You're right. Prudence would suggest the Iraqis be prepared for a US
chemical attack.
Precedent, OTOH, would suggest the Iraqis are prepared for an Iraqi chemical
attack.
J
Dr Chaos
>>>things? Fear that we'll use VX?
>>
>>
>> Bingo! That _TOO_, yes.
>
> Then you are an idiot. The US does not use WMD unless we are attacked
> with them first.
Not really, the US (like Pakistan) did not rule out first use of tactical
nuclear weapons in the event of a Soviet invasion of Europe. (and for
the same reason---Pakistan faces an army which is conventionally many times
stronger than its own).
> This is, and has been, national policy since the 50's.
> Saddam knows this.
Since the chemical and biological weapons treaties the US will not
deploy or use lethal biological or chemical weapons in any circumstance.
In any case, chemical weapons have no rational battlefield use for US
forces because they negate the typical US advantages of speed and
mobility by denying an entire area to friendly forces but without
guaranteed effects on the enemy which can be verified by remote
sensing technology.
A chemical cloud is like a minefield, and such minefields are major
impediments to US strategy and tactics. As such they'd be useful
to Iraq.
Lethal biological weapons are completely useless militarily, they
are only terrorist weapons on civilian populations.
Richard Caul
<li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>Mark Thornton wrote:
>> "LiamSlider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in message
>> news:b6cs4m$3uqli$1...@ID-169482.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>>>Tom Welsh wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <b6coef$402kn$1...@ID-169482.news.dfncis.de>, LiamSlider
>>>><li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Five minutes with Google produced the following two documents.
>>>
>>>Ok so it's clear we don't need those weapons any more and are disposing
>>>of them as fast as we can. We certainly wouldn't use this stuff. it's
>>>not currently an arsonal, just garbage awaiting destruction.
>>>
>>
>>
>> However so long as it exists, normal military practice for an opponent would
>> be to prepare for the possibility that it might be used. The assurances of
>> politicians are worthless in this context.
>
>Yes but assuming that we would use them is assuming quite a lot about
>the USA. It's not as if we are a cold hearted dictatorship here. And
>we're going out of our way to avoid civilian casualties....use of WMD
>would run counter to that caution.
I suppose as far as the Iraqis are concerned, the U.S. is a country
that invades them because it wants their oil, has already used WMD
against primarily civilian populations, has openly declared that it
would keep the option of a first use of WMD if it deems it the
appropriate response, and has recently freed itself from all remaining
appearances of being answerable to international insitutions if it
unilaterally finds them to be a hindrance.
Now, mind you, I am not saying any of this is true, I am merely
summarizing what I suspect might be the what the leadership in Iraq
thinks about this country.
> Face it, Saddam has equipped his
>troops with gear to protect them from nerve gas because he plans to use
>it against Coalition Forces, or to use it against his own people and try
>to blame us. That is the most likely answer in this case, especially
>taking into account US history, Iraqi history, and the current political
> and tactical situations. This is, simply, the most logical explanation.
This is taking into account *your views* of these things, but in order
to make a guess at the possible motivations behind this action (which,
as far as I understand your argument, is what you are trying to do
here), you need to also make a guess at the views that might underly
those motivations, and not simply equate them with your own because
that is The Truth.
Is it really true that most Americans cannot understand any other
perspective than their own?
RC
Richard Caul
Absolutely. And it's a rational reaction, too. Given the fact that the
U.S. is clearly unwilling to work within the framework of
international institutions if it finds this inconvenient, and given
the fact that we pursue our interests in any region of this planet
with military force if we think we need to, the only way for a country
to protect its interests is a mini-MAD doctrine: Make it as expensive
as possible for the U.S. to wage war on you. And perhaps the cheapest
way of doing so is to buy or build nukes, and ideally ICBMs that can
reach the continental U.S.
Irrespective of what happens in Iraq, this seems to be a guaranteed
result of this episode in history.
RC
JTK
> "LiamSlider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in message
> news:b6c5hk$3q5as$1...@ID-169482.news.dfncis.de...
>
>>Luke Tulkas wrote:
>><snip garbage>
>>
>>>And there is a kind of competition to ask the WMD question: have any
>>>weapons of mass destruction turned up yet?
>>><<No sir, but we found more than 300 anti-WMD kits, suits, gass masks,
>>>the full "regalia"!>>
>>
>>And why do you think so many Iraqi soldiers are equipped with those
>>things? Fear that we'll use VX? We don't use WMD first, that's been
>>national policy for decades (and Saddam knows this), so what WMD are
>>they preparing for? The only thing they can be preparing for is their
>>own use of such weapons.
>
>
> Rumsfeld has indicated an interest in using (non lethal) gas. They could
> reasonably have been preparing for that.
That my friends is what we refer to as "Saddamapology".
JTK
> "LiamSlider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in message
> news:b6c8f0$3o2gj$2...@ID-169482.news.dfncis.de...
>
>>Mark Thornton wrote:
>>
>>>"LiamSlider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in message
>>>news:b6c5hk$3q5as$1...@ID-169482.news.dfncis.de...
>>>
>>>Rumsfeld has indicated an interest in using (non lethal) gas. They could
>>>reasonably have been preparing for that. The Iraqis probably don't trust
>>>their neighbours not use such weapons either. British and US troops had
>
> such
>
>>>equipment before Saddam used gas in the 80s --- because they didn't
>
> trust
>
>>>others to respect the chemical weapons ban. So the possession of this
>>>equipment proves very little.
>>
>>You don't use atropine injectors for non-lethal gas.
>
>
> True, but having indicated a willingness to discard part of the chemical
> weapons ban, you could hardly blame the Iraqis for thinking he might
> consider throwing away the rest.
Didn't Def Leppard do a song called "Saddamapology"? I think it was off
the "Hussteria" disc:
"When you make love
Do you look in the mirror
Who do you think of
Does he have a 'stash and a beret..."
Luke Tulkas
> Ok so it's clear we don't need those weapons any more and are
disposing
> of them as fast as we can.
As fast as you can? Well, heck, YOU'RE NOT DOING IT FAST ENOUGH! At
least if we compare your blaming of Iraq for not destroying their whole
arsenal of too-long-a-range missiles in a couple of days. Again,
hypocrisy kicking through...
Mark Thornton
> Mark Thornton wrote:
> > "LiamSlider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in message
> > news:b6cs4m$3uqli$1...@ID-169482.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> >>Tom Welsh wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <b6coef$402kn$1...@ID-169482.news.dfncis.de>, LiamSlider
> >>><li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> writes
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Five minutes with Google produced the following two documents.
> >>
> >>Ok so it's clear we don't need those weapons any more and are disposing
> >>of them as fast as we can. We certainly wouldn't use this stuff. it's
> >>not currently an arsonal, just garbage awaiting destruction.
> >>
> >
> >
> > However so long as it exists, normal military practice for an opponent
would
> > be to prepare for the possibility that it might be used. The assurances
of
> > politicians are worthless in this context.
>
> Yes but assuming that we would use them is assuming quite a lot about
> the USA. It's not as if we are a cold hearted dictatorship here.
Military planning doesn't work that way (or didn't when I was in training, I
doubt it has changed).
Mark Thornton
Mark Thornton
"JTK" <gsagdj...@ahgkjhsadh.com> wrote in message
news:kwtia.10101$cO3.6...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Mark Thornton wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Rumsfeld has indicated an interest in using (non lethal) gas. They could
> > reasonably have been preparing for that.
>
> That my friends is what we refer to as "Saddamapology".
>
No it is just a standard assessment of how the military planners of most
countries operate. Planning is based on capability not on what we think the
politicians might do. Do you know any military officers (of any country) ---
if so ask them, they will probably give the same answer as I have.
Mark Thornton
LiamSlider
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 16:08:00 -0600, LiamSlider
> <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Thornton wrote:
>>
>>>"LiamSlider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in message
>>>news:b6cs4m$3uqli$1...@ID-169482.news.dfncis.de...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tom Welsh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <b6coef$402kn$1...@ID-169482.news.dfncis.de>, LiamSlider
>>>>><li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Five minutes with Google produced the following two documents.
>>>>
>>>>Ok so it's clear we don't need those weapons any more and are disposing
>>>>of them as fast as we can. We certainly wouldn't use this stuff. it's
>>>>not currently an arsonal, just garbage awaiting destruction.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>However so long as it exists, normal military practice for an opponent would
>>>be to prepare for the possibility that it might be used. The assurances of
>>>politicians are worthless in this context.
>>
>>Yes but assuming that we would use them is assuming quite a lot about
>>the USA. It's not as if we are a cold hearted dictatorship here. And
>>we're going out of our way to avoid civilian casualties....use of WMD
>>would run counter to that caution.
>
>
> I suppose as far as the Iraqis are concerned, the U.S. is a country
> that invades them because it wants their oil
The protesters keep claiming that too, not true of course.
>, has already used WMD
> against primarily civilian populations,
In one war, in the 1940s, and were so horrified by the aftermath we hope
never to use them again. Saddam on the other hand has used them far more
recently and with no remorse.
> has openly declared that it
> would keep the option of a first use of WMD if it deems it the
> appropriate response,
NATO has declared that...this isn't a NATO action.
>and has recently freed itself from all remaining
> appearances of being answerable to international insitutions if it
> unilaterally finds them to be a hindrance.
We aren't acting unilaterally. There are Czech, British, Dutch, Danish,
and Aussie forces there, and we have support in other areas by other
countries. That is hardly acting unilaterally.
>
>> Face it, Saddam has equipped his
>>troops with gear to protect them from nerve gas because he plans to use
>>it against Coalition Forces, or to use it against his own people and try
>>to blame us. That is the most likely answer in this case, especially
>>taking into account US history, Iraqi history, and the current political
>> and tactical situations. This is, simply, the most logical explanation.
>
>
> This is taking into account *your views* of these things, but in order
> to make a guess at the possible motivations behind this action (which,
> as far as I understand your argument, is what you are trying to do
> here), you need to also make a guess at the views that might underly
> those motivations, and not simply equate them with your own because
> that is The Truth.
I look at the evidence, and make logical deductions as to what is the
most likely scenario.
>
> Is it really true that most Americans cannot understand any other
> perspective than their own?
Of course not, no more than every other group of people in the world. I
personally though, don't understand why people support a monster such as
Saddam, and can't say enough bad things about the USA...it's far from
logical and reasonable. And that *is* what I understand, logic and reason.
LiamSlider
No the issue is different. We disclose everything we have, and are
openly destroying it for the world to see. Saddam plays hide and seek
with weapons inspectors and destroys a handful of weapons, possibly at
only slightly faster than replacement rate, only when there are troops
on the border threatening him. He also keeps playing hide and seek with
the rest of his weapons. Or are you one of those people that think he
has only 1 or 2 leftover bombs because that's all we've stumbled across?
At any rate, there's a big difference between the USA's actions, and
Saddam's.
Richard Caul
<li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>Richard Caul wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 16:08:00 -0600, LiamSlider
>> <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>>Yes but assuming that we would use them is assuming quite a lot about
>>>the USA. It's not as if we are a cold hearted dictatorship here. And
>>>we're going out of our way to avoid civilian casualties....use of WMD
>>>would run counter to that caution.
>>
>>
>> I suppose as far as the Iraqis are concerned, the U.S. is a country
>> that invades them because it wants their oil
>
>The protesters keep claiming that too, not true of course.
The point is that for the purposes of this discussion it does not
matter whether it is true or not. All that matters is whether this is
a perspective people have, and how many people have it.
>>, has already used WMD
>> against primarily civilian populations,
>
>In one war, in the 1940s, and were so horrified by the aftermath we hope
>never to use them again. Saddam on the other hand has used them far more
> recently and with no remorse.
>
>> has openly declared that it
>> would keep the option of a first use of WMD if it deems it the
>> appropriate response,
>
>NATO has declared that...this isn't a NATO action.
The U.S. signed that communique, and unless you show me documents
registering our protest, it means that first use of WMD is okay with
us. At least this is a fact, and the people on the other side know it,
too.
>>and has recently freed itself from all remaining
>> appearances of being answerable to international insitutions if it
>> unilaterally finds them to be a hindrance.
>
>We aren't acting unilaterally. There are Czech, British, Dutch, Danish,
>and Aussie forces there, and we have support in other areas by other
>countries. That is hardly acting unilaterally.
Again, you are confusing your views with The Truth That Everyone Must
Think, just because you do. I was listing likely views on the U.S. on
the Iraqi side (and more generally, the Arab world), and if you follow
Arab (or, indeed, any non-U.S.) media with any degree of attention,
you'll know that my list was far from exhaustive.
>>> Face it, Saddam has equipped his
>>>troops with gear to protect them from nerve gas because he plans to use
>>>it against Coalition Forces, or to use it against his own people and try
>>>to blame us. That is the most likely answer in this case, especially
>>>taking into account US history, Iraqi history, and the current political
>>> and tactical situations. This is, simply, the most logical explanation.
>>
>>
>> This is taking into account *your views* of these things, but in order
>> to make a guess at the possible motivations behind this action (which,
>> as far as I understand your argument, is what you are trying to do
>> here), you need to also make a guess at the views that might underly
>> those motivations, and not simply equate them with your own because
>> that is The Truth.
>
>I look at the evidence, and make logical deductions as to what is the
>most likely scenario.
If I understood you correctly, your argument was that the Iraq
leadership cannot possibly assume that we would use gas in the war,
and that *therefore* the fact that their troops are carrying equipment
used against such an attack can only be in preparation of their *own*
use.
In order to argue the premise of this implication you iterated *your*
views of the U.S. as good and noble, and utterly incapable of the use
of such ghastly weaponty.
What you seem to claim here is that you arrived at this conclusion
solely by logic, and that any impartial observer with the capacity for
rational thought must therefore arrive at the same conclusion.
Well, the fact seems to be that the vast majority of the people on
this planet quite obviously don't. Perhaps this means that most human
beings with a well-developed rational mind reside (by genetic chance?
superior education? God's will?) in the U.S.
Another possible interpretation is that politics, once more, is not
about truth, but about interests, and that how you look at a gun and
its morals depends entirely on which side you are on. And that you
demonstrated the truth of the subsequent conjecture in your case:
>> Is it really true that most Americans cannot understand any other
>> perspective than their own?
>
>Of course not, no more than every other group of people in the world. I
>personally though, don't understand why people support a monster such as
>Saddam, and can't say enough bad things about the USA...it's far from
>logical and reasonable. And that *is* what I understand, logic and reason.
Right. The only thing that you do not seem to have the faintest clue
about is other points of view, and that the American view of the world
is but one of many.
RC
LiamSlider
> On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 07:36:27 -0600, LiamSlider
> <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Richard Caul wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 16:08:00 -0600, LiamSlider
>>><li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>
>>>>Yes but assuming that we would use them is assuming quite a lot about
>>>>the USA. It's not as if we are a cold hearted dictatorship here. And
>>>>we're going out of our way to avoid civilian casualties....use of WMD
>>>>would run counter to that caution.
>>>
>>>
>>>I suppose as far as the Iraqis are concerned, the U.S. is a country
>>>that invades them because it wants their oil
>>
>>The protesters keep claiming that too, not true of course.
>
>
> The point is that for the purposes of this discussion it does not
> matter whether it is true or not. All that matters is whether this is
> a perspective people have, and how many people have it.
Ok I'll accept that, regardless of the actual accuracy of the claim itself.
>
>
>>>, has already used WMD
>>>against primarily civilian populations,
>>
>>In one war, in the 1940s, and were so horrified by the aftermath we hope
>>never to use them again. Saddam on the other hand has used them far more
>> recently and with no remorse.
>>
>>
>>>has openly declared that it
>>>would keep the option of a first use of WMD if it deems it the
>>>appropriate response,
>>
>>NATO has declared that...this isn't a NATO action.
>
>
> The U.S. signed that communique, and unless you show me documents
> registering our protest, it means that first use of WMD is okay with
> us. At least this is a fact, and the people on the other side know it,
> too.
>
As someone else here has already posted, that was pretty much a bluff
pulled against the Soviets.
>
>>>and has recently freed itself from all remaining
>>>appearances of being answerable to international insitutions if it
>>>unilaterally finds them to be a hindrance.
>>
>>We aren't acting unilaterally. There are Czech, British, Dutch, Danish,
>>and Aussie forces there, and we have support in other areas by other
>>countries. That is hardly acting unilaterally.
>
>
> Again, you are confusing your views with The Truth That Everyone Must
> Think, just because you do. I was listing likely views on the U.S. on
> the Iraqi side (and more generally, the Arab world), and if you follow
> Arab (or, indeed, any non-U.S.) media with any degree of attention,
> you'll know that my list was far from exhaustive.
The problem is that Arab media has always been heavily biased against
anything non-Arab.
>
>
>>>>Face it, Saddam has equipped his
>>>>troops with gear to protect them from nerve gas because he plans to use
>>>>it against Coalition Forces, or to use it against his own people and try
>>>>to blame us. That is the most likely answer in this case, especially
>>>>taking into account US history, Iraqi history, and the current political
>>>>and tactical situations. This is, simply, the most logical explanation.
>>>
>>>
>>>This is taking into account *your views* of these things, but in order
>>>to make a guess at the possible motivations behind this action (which,
>>>as far as I understand your argument, is what you are trying to do
>>>here), you need to also make a guess at the views that might underly
>>>those motivations, and not simply equate them with your own because
>>>that is The Truth.
>>
>>I look at the evidence, and make logical deductions as to what is the
>>most likely scenario.
>
>
> If I understood you correctly, your argument was that the Iraq
> leadership cannot possibly assume that we would use gas in the war,
> and that *therefore* the fact that their troops are carrying equipment
> used against such an attack can only be in preparation of their *own*
> use.
>
> In order to argue the premise of this implication you iterated *your*
> views of the U.S. as good and noble, and utterly incapable of the use
> of such ghastly weaponty.
No, it merely requires that the use be political suicide. It is.
>
> What you seem to claim here is that you arrived at this conclusion
> solely by logic, and that any impartial observer with the capacity for
> rational thought must therefore arrive at the same conclusion.
Any impartial observer with access to the same information yes.
>
> Well, the fact seems to be that the vast majority of the people on
> this planet quite obviously don't. Perhaps this means that most human
> beings with a well-developed rational mind reside (by genetic chance?
> superior education? God's will?) in the U.S.
I never said anything about the people of the US, I was speaking of my
own personal way of thinking. In my opinion though, many if not most
people in this country are reactionary emotionalists, not something to
based decisions on. However, the logical decision is that this war is
ultimately for the betterment of both Iraq, and the stability of the
region, while sending a clear message to other illegitimate regimes.
Some emotionalists are supporting the war out of nationalism, others
oppose the war out of anti-Americanism (the premise that is America does
something, it must be wrong), and still others out of unworkable
pacifist ideology.
I can't say anything about other countries, but no doubt the public's
responses there are mainly rooted in emotionalism and idealism instead
of rational, logical thought.
>
> Another possible interpretation is that politics, once more, is not
> about truth, but about interests, and that how you look at a gun and
> its morals depends entirely on which side you are on. And that you
> demonstrated the truth of the subsequent conjecture in your case:
Regardless of the "interests" this war will have an overall positive effect.
>
>
>>>Is it really true that most Americans cannot understand any other
>>>perspective than their own?
>>
>>Of course not, no more than every other group of people in the world. I
>>personally though, don't understand why people support a monster such as
>>Saddam, and can't say enough bad things about the USA...it's far from
>>logical and reasonable. And that *is* what I understand, logic and reason.
>
>
> Right. The only thing that you do not seem to have the faintest clue
> about is other points of view, and that the American view of the world
> is but one of many.
I never said that. But it seems that no matter what America does (or
doesn't do) it's the wrong thing. If we did the opposite....it'd still
be viewed as the wrong thing. I've seen that way too many times...simple
anti-American bias.
Mark Thornton
> >
> >>Luke Tulkas wrote:
> >><snip garbage>
> >>
> >>>And there is a kind of competition to ask the WMD question: have any
> >>>weapons of mass destruction turned up yet?
> >>><<No sir, but we found more than 300 anti-WMD kits, suits, gass
> >>
> > masks,
> >
> >>>the full "regalia"!>>
> >>
> >>And why do you think so many Iraqi soldiers are equipped with those
> >>things? Fear that we'll use VX?
> >
> >
>
> Then you are an idiot. The US does not use WMD unless we are attacked
> Saddam knows this.
I am reminded that the US did use chemical weapons in Vietnam --- Agent
Orange and Napalm. While one might quibble about classifying agent orange in
this way (if we accept that the US didn't know about its side effects at the
time), I think the description of Napalm as a chemical weapon is fair.
Mark Thornton
JTK
*COUGH*12years*HACK*
> Again,
> hypocrisy kicking through...
>
*HACK*SCUDS*COUGHHACKCOUGHACHOO*
Luke Tulkas
> > As fast as you can? Well, heck, YOU'RE NOT DOING IT FAST ENOUGH! At
> > least if we compare your blaming of Iraq for not destroying their
whole
> > arsenal of too-long-a-range missiles in a couple of days.
>
> *COUGH*12years*HACK*
Excuse me?!? How about 30 years (_THIRTY_YEARZ_!) of your
(non)destroying your chemical arsenal?
Richard Caul
<li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>Richard Caul wrote:
[snip]
>> The U.S. signed that communique, and unless you show me documents
>> registering our protest, it means that first use of WMD is okay with
>> us. At least this is a fact, and the people on the other side know it,
>> too.
>>
>
>As someone else here has already posted, that was pretty much a bluff
>pulled against the Soviets.
If you refer to Otis, he did not say it was a "bluff"---all he claimed
is that it was directed against the Soviet Union and the WP. Do you
have any indication whatsoever that it was a "bluff", i.e. that NATO
did not, in fact, "intend" to use nuclear force first if need be?
>> Again, you are confusing your views with The Truth That Everyone Must
>> Think, just because you do. I was listing likely views on the U.S. on
>> the Iraqi side (and more generally, the Arab world), and if you follow
>> Arab (or, indeed, any non-U.S.) media with any degree of attention,
>> you'll know that my list was far from exhaustive.
>
>The problem is that Arab media has always been heavily biased against
>anything non-Arab.
The same (well, the opposite) can be said about American media.
However, we are not even arguing The Truth here, we are arguing what
might be plausible motives behind actions. (Remember, this is what you
are trying to say here.)
All I am saying is that it seems unreasonable to assume that the Iraqi
leadership shares your view of the world and then start to interpret
their actions from that. A much better starting point is to try to
understand their perspective from their media context, and this is not
Fox News, CNN, and the New York Post.
[snip]
>> If I understood you correctly, your argument was that the Iraq
>> leadership cannot possibly assume that we would use gas in the war,
>> and that *therefore* the fact that their troops are carrying equipment
>> used against such an attack can only be in preparation of their *own*
>> use.
>>
>> In order to argue the premise of this implication you iterated *your*
>> views of the U.S. as good and noble, and utterly incapable of the use
>> of such ghastly weaponty.
>
>No, it merely requires that the use be political suicide. It is.
Not under all circumstances. People's attitudes change---just imagine
the Iraqis start slaughtering our boys, and we see them torturing them
on TV, dragging them through city streets etc. The whole shebang. How
many pictures of that kind do you think we need on CNN for the
American public to support the use of about any weapon on Iraq in
order to end the war?
Why do you think have many Americans supported the obliteration of two
Japanese cities, and many still do?
>> What you seem to claim here is that you arrived at this conclusion
>> solely by logic, and that any impartial observer with the capacity for
>> rational thought must therefore arrive at the same conclusion.
>
>Any impartial observer with access to the same information yes.
So you are saying your particular preferences, the way you select
information and information sources, the way your judgment works on
the information has nothing to do with any of your views? Just axioms
and logic?
And do you say you are impartial?
>> Well, the fact seems to be that the vast majority of the people on
>> this planet quite obviously don't. Perhaps this means that most human
>> beings with a well-developed rational mind reside (by genetic chance?
>> superior education? God's will?) in the U.S.
>
>I never said anything about the people of the US, I was speaking of my
>own personal way of thinking.
But it *is* kinda odd, isn't it, that just about the only nations
where you can find any sizeable fragment of the population supporting
the war are the U.S. and Britain (and a few countries in Eastern
Europe).
> In my opinion though, many if not most
>people in this country are reactionary emotionalists, not something to
>based decisions on. However, the logical decision is that this war is
>ultimately for the betterment of both Iraq, and the stability of the
>region, while sending a clear message to other illegitimate regimes.
Again, the vast majority of the people on this planet disagree with
you on this. Since your conclusions are pure logic, this can only mean
that their axiom systems are different from yours, or that they do not
employ logic.
I think if you seriously think that there is a logical deduction that
shows that this war is "good", you should write it down and publish
it. If you wish, I could probably name a few good journals that you
might submit it to.
>Some emotionalists are supporting the war out of nationalism, others
>oppose the war out of anti-Americanism (the premise that is America does
>something, it must be wrong), and still others out of unworkable
>pacifist ideology.
>
>I can't say anything about other countries, but no doubt the public's
>responses there are mainly rooted in emotionalism and idealism instead
>of rational, logical thought.
Fortunately, we have impartial, unbiased, and rational individuals
like you to guide us.
>> Another possible interpretation is that politics, once more, is not
>> about truth, but about interests, and that how you look at a gun and
>> its morals depends entirely on which side you are on. And that you
>> demonstrated the truth of the subsequent conjecture in your case:
>
>Regardless of the "interests" this war will have an overall positive effect.
Except for those whose interests do not prevail, of course. Like every
war since men started to kill each other on this planet.
[snip]
>> Right. The only thing that you do not seem to have the faintest clue
>> about is other points of view, and that the American view of the world
>> is but one of many.
>
>I never said that.
No, you said something else. You said that your view is not even
American, it is The Truth, because it is based on Logic. This means
you are either not even aware of your bias, or you are too conceited
to admit to it. I do not know what is worse.
> But it seems that no matter what America does (or
>doesn't do) it's the wrong thing. If we did the opposite....it'd still
>be viewed as the wrong thing. I've seen that way too many times...simple
>anti-American bias.
That is nonsense. There are many things we did that many people all
over the planet are most thankful for. I lived in Berlin for a while,
and up until now, people there were extremely pro-American for the
many things that we did for the city and the country, most notably the
support of the city by air during the time of the Soviet embargo.
Americans were heroes in those days.
Many of these people are now on the streets opposing the war. The fact
that many Americans, including, it seems, you, cannot distinguish
between opposition to American foreign policy and anti-Americanism
does not change the fact that there is a difference. After the
demonstration, those people will maybe watch Bruce Willis in the
cinema and go to MacDonalds, and their vacation they might spend in
New York. But this does not mean they agree with our foreign policies,
nor should they have to.
However, if we ruthlessly continue to act exclusively in our own
national interests, ignoring international organizations which we
quite obviously only use when they are convenient, you can hardly
complain about people being increasingly critical of this country and
the people responsible for its government.
RC
LiamSlider
> On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 12:30:43 -0600, LiamSlider
> <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Richard Caul wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>The U.S. signed that communique, and unless you show me documents
>>>registering our protest, it means that first use of WMD is okay with
>>>us. At least this is a fact, and the people on the other side know it,
>>>too.
>>>
>>
>>As someone else here has already posted, that was pretty much a bluff
>>pulled against the Soviets.
>
>
> If you refer to Otis, he did not say it was a "bluff"---all he claimed
> is that it was directed against the Soviet Union and the WP. Do you
> have any indication whatsoever that it was a "bluff", i.e. that NATO
> did not, in fact, "intend" to use nuclear force first if need be?
>
Well for one, the US policy of no nuclear first strike.
>
>>>Again, you are confusing your views with The Truth That Everyone Must
>>>Think, just because you do. I was listing likely views on the U.S. on
>>>the Iraqi side (and more generally, the Arab world), and if you follow
>>>Arab (or, indeed, any non-U.S.) media with any degree of attention,
>>>you'll know that my list was far from exhaustive.
>>
>>The problem is that Arab media has always been heavily biased against
>>anything non-Arab.
>
>
> The same (well, the opposite) can be said about American media.
> However, we are not even arguing The Truth here, we are arguing what
> might be plausible motives behind actions. (Remember, this is what you
> are trying to say here.)
>
> All I am saying is that it seems unreasonable to assume that the Iraqi
> leadership shares your view of the world and then start to interpret
> their actions from that. A much better starting point is to try to
> understand their perspective from their media context, and this is not
> Fox News, CNN, and the New York Post.
Their media is hyping up any slightest thing that can be used against
America, while staying quiet about the enemy atrocities. It's easy to
see why people ruled by emotionalism and idealism would be upset.
>
> [snip]
>
>>>If I understood you correctly, your argument was that the Iraq
>>>leadership cannot possibly assume that we would use gas in the war,
>>>and that *therefore* the fact that their troops are carrying equipment
>>>used against such an attack can only be in preparation of their *own*
>>>use.
>>>
>>>In order to argue the premise of this implication you iterated *your*
>>>views of the U.S. as good and noble, and utterly incapable of the use
>>>of such ghastly weaponty.
>>
>>No, it merely requires that the use be political suicide. It is.
>
>
> Not under all circumstances. People's attitudes change---just imagine
> the Iraqis start slaughtering our boys, and we see them torturing them
> on TV, dragging them through city streets etc. The whole shebang. How
> many pictures of that kind do you think we need on CNN for the
> American public to support the use of about any weapon on Iraq in
> order to end the war?
By the simple fact that it won't happen, and couldn't happen. We have
massive superiority on the ground and in the air, and the Iraqi people
aren't in support of Saddam. There would have to be a failure of all of
that to bring about what you are talking about. Incredibly improbable
assumptions even before the war started. And it looks to be nearly over.
Coalition forces have begun to take Baghdad even as we converse.
>
> Why do you think have many Americans supported the obliteration of two
> Japanese cities, and many still do?
The situation is far different though, see above. The situation in Iraq
could never reach that kind of extreme by the most generous calculations.
>
>
>>>What you seem to claim here is that you arrived at this conclusion
>>>solely by logic, and that any impartial observer with the capacity for
>>>rational thought must therefore arrive at the same conclusion.
>>
>>Any impartial observer with access to the same information yes.
>
>
> So you are saying your particular preferences, the way you select
> information and information sources, the way your judgment works on
> the information has nothing to do with any of your views? Just axioms
> and logic?
Simple logical deduction and reasoning. And as for my judgement....well
let me tell you my thoughts. I don't particularly like our government
(nor do I violently oppose it of course), I don't like the two-party
system, and like it less when it's bi-partisan because it's not much
different than a one party system. I disagree with the amount of control
the Federal government has that they were never intended to have. I
disagree with violations of privacy, the "war on drugs", and the
absolutely corrupt politics. I don't like that agencies like the IRS,
NSA, DHS, the Environmental Protection Agency, the FDA, etc... exist.
I'm against entangling alliances (though I support following through
with commitments once they are made). On most levels I am libertarian.
However I do not let my own anti-government biases effect my judgement
about this war. In my mind, any action that deposes a brutal, oppressive
regime, while keeping civilian casualties minimal, is a good thing. I
dislike the US government, but I fully support the war. I also support
the war on terrorism, as unlike with the war on drugs, these people are
a real threat, as are the nations which give them support. My views on
my government, if I let them rule my views on the war (as most
emotionalists do), would probably have me opposing the war on simple
anti-government grounds.
Also note, I don't dislike American culture, technology, or people (with
the exception of the complete idiots out there).
>
> And do you say you are impartial?
I'd say given the above I'm as impartial as one can get, and still be
anti-oppression.
>
>
>>>Well, the fact seems to be that the vast majority of the people on
>>>this planet quite obviously don't. Perhaps this means that most human
>>>beings with a well-developed rational mind reside (by genetic chance?
>>>superior education? God's will?) in the U.S.
>>
>>I never said anything about the people of the US, I was speaking of my
>>own personal way of thinking.
>
>
> But it *is* kinda odd, isn't it, that just about the only nations
> where you can find any sizeable fragment of the population supporting
> the war are the U.S. and Britain (and a few countries in Eastern
> Europe).
It may be that it is because we see the threat, and act, while others
support appeasement (which never works).
>
>
>>In my opinion though, many if not most
>>people in this country are reactionary emotionalists, not something to
>>based decisions on. However, the logical decision is that this war is
>>ultimately for the betterment of both Iraq, and the stability of the
>>region, while sending a clear message to other illegitimate regimes.
>
>
> Again, the vast majority of the people on this planet disagree with
> you on this. Since your conclusions are pure logic, this can only mean
> that their axiom systems are different from yours, or that they do not
> employ logic.
I have stated several times why this war is to the betterment of Iraq
and the region.
>
> I think if you seriously think that there is a logical deduction that
> shows that this war is "good", you should write it down and publish
> it. If you wish, I could probably name a few good journals that you
> might submit it to.
>
>
>>Some emotionalists are supporting the war out of nationalism, others
>>oppose the war out of anti-Americanism (the premise that is America does
>>something, it must be wrong), and still others out of unworkable
>>pacifist ideology.
>>
>>I can't say anything about other countries, but no doubt the public's
>>responses there are mainly rooted in emotionalism and idealism instead
>>of rational, logical thought.
>
>
> Fortunately, we have impartial, unbiased, and rational individuals
> like you to guide us.
Or at least people who can such people as advisers.
>
>
>>>Another possible interpretation is that politics, once more, is not
>>>about truth, but about interests, and that how you look at a gun and
>>>its morals depends entirely on which side you are on. And that you
>>>demonstrated the truth of the subsequent conjecture in your case:
>>
>>Regardless of the "interests" this war will have an overall positive effect.
>
>
> Except for those whose interests do not prevail, of course. Like every
> war since men started to kill each other on this planet.
Well I doubt the Baath party interest will not be happy, but that's a
good thing for the vast majority.
>
> [snip]
>
>>>Right. The only thing that you do not seem to have the faintest clue
>>>about is other points of view, and that the American view of the world
>>>is but one of many.
>>
>>I never said that.
>
>
> No, you said something else. You said that your view is not even
> American, it is The Truth, because it is based on Logic. This means
> you are either not even aware of your bias, or you are too conceited
> to admit to it. I do not know what is worse.
See above about my "bias."
>
>
>>But it seems that no matter what America does (or
>>doesn't do) it's the wrong thing. If we did the opposite....it'd still
>>be viewed as the wrong thing. I've seen that way too many times...simple
>>anti-American bias.
>
>
> That is nonsense. There are many things we did that many people all
> over the planet are most thankful for. I lived in Berlin for a while,
> and up until now, people there were extremely pro-American for the
> many things that we did for the city and the country, most notably the
> support of the city by air during the time of the Soviet embargo.
> Americans were heroes in those days.
We are going to do the same things for Iraq.
>
> Many of these people are now on the streets opposing the war. The fact
> that many Americans, including, it seems, you, cannot distinguish
> between opposition to American foreign policy and anti-Americanism
> does not change the fact that there is a difference. After the
> demonstration, those people will maybe watch Bruce Willis in the
> cinema and go to MacDonalds, and their vacation they might spend in
> New York. But this does not mean they agree with our foreign policies,
> nor should they have to.
Like I said, I support any foreign policy that leads to the end of
oppression.
>
> However, if we ruthlessly continue to act exclusively in our own
> national interests, ignoring international organizations which we
> quite obviously only use when they are convenient, you can hardly
> complain about people being increasingly critical of this country and
> the people responsible for its government.
The UN is an outdated dinosaur of the WW2/Cold War eras, it just doesn't
know it's extinct yet. And it's moves to try to become a true "world
government" are quite disturbing to me. It is far easier to have
liberty, when there is more than one nation in existance. Yet that is
exactly how the UN sees itself, as the Supreme Government of Earth.
Thank goodness that they can't get their act together and actually get
anything done.
Richard Caul
<li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>Richard Caul wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 12:30:43 -0600, LiamSlider
>> <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Richard Caul wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>The U.S. signed that communique, and unless you show me documents
>>>>registering our protest, it means that first use of WMD is okay with
>>>>us. At least this is a fact, and the people on the other side know it,
>>>>too.
>>>>
>>>
>>>As someone else here has already posted, that was pretty much a bluff
>>>pulled against the Soviets.
>>
>>
>> If you refer to Otis, he did not say it was a "bluff"---all he claimed
>> is that it was directed against the Soviet Union and the WP. Do you
>> have any indication whatsoever that it was a "bluff", i.e. that NATO
>> did not, in fact, "intend" to use nuclear force first if need be?
>>
>
>Well for one, the US policy of no nuclear first strike.
Hm, but isn't this what you are currently *claiming*? I replied with
pointing out *the* corner stone of NATO's strategy, "flexible
response", which explicitly threatens a nuclear first strike, and has
been endorsed by all NATO governments, including the U.S. Wouldn't you
now have to produce some shred of actual *evidence* supporting your
claim, rather than reiterating the claim as proof?
Or is this how Logic a la Liam works: In order to prove a theorem, you
just turn it into an axiom, and you are done.
[snip]
>>>The problem is that Arab media has always been heavily biased against
>>>anything non-Arab.
>>
>>
>> The same (well, the opposite) can be said about American media.
>> However, we are not even arguing The Truth here, we are arguing what
>> might be plausible motives behind actions. (Remember, this is what you
>> are trying to say here.)
>>
>> All I am saying is that it seems unreasonable to assume that the Iraqi
>> leadership shares your view of the world and then start to interpret
>> their actions from that. A much better starting point is to try to
>> understand their perspective from their media context, and this is not
>> Fox News, CNN, and the New York Post.
>
>Their media is hyping up any slightest thing that can be used against
>America, while staying quiet about the enemy atrocities. It's easy to
>see why people ruled by emotionalism and idealism would be upset.
Fortunately our media are bastions of objectivity that protect us from
making the same mistakes, thereby allowing our superior logic to work
out the right solution for everyone.
[snip]
>> Not under all circumstances. People's attitudes change---just imagine
>> the Iraqis start slaughtering our boys, and we see them torturing them
>> on TV, dragging them through city streets etc. The whole shebang. How
>> many pictures of that kind do you think we need on CNN for the
>> American public to support the use of about any weapon on Iraq in
>> order to end the war?
>
>By the simple fact that it won't happen, and couldn't happen.
Probably not, but you have to assume that the Iraqi leadership is in
the game to win. Therefore they will prepare for the eventuality that
they do---if under these circumstances they see a reasonable chance
that their opponents resort to, say, chemical weapons, it seems
appropriate to equip their military accordingly.
[snip]
>> Why do you think have many Americans supported the obliteration of two
>> Japanese cities, and many still do?
>
>The situation is far different though, see above. The situation in Iraq
>could never reach that kind of extreme by the most generous calculations.
Again, you fail to see it from the perspective of the Iraqi
leadership. You are assuming your judgments and motivations as theirs
and argue from that. Quite naive, I think.
In particular I noted that essentially all of the verbs in the
preceding paragraphs refer to subjective cognitive acts---I did not
see any verb like "deduce" or "axiom", which would refer to logic
being at work. Could it be that Liam is just like the rest of us, a
subjective being with lots of likes and dislikes and the need to
rationalize them?
>> And do you say you are impartial?
>
>I'd say given the above I'm as impartial as one can get, and still be
>anti-oppression.
"Impartial as *you* can get" would be more accurate.
>>>>Well, the fact seems to be that the vast majority of the people on
>>>>this planet quite obviously don't. Perhaps this means that most human
>>>>beings with a well-developed rational mind reside (by genetic chance?
>>>>superior education? God's will?) in the U.S.
>>>
>>>I never said anything about the people of the US, I was speaking of my
>>>own personal way of thinking.
>>
>>
>> But it *is* kinda odd, isn't it, that just about the only nations
>> where you can find any sizeable fragment of the population supporting
>> the war are the U.S. and Britain (and a few countries in Eastern
>> Europe).
>
>It may be that it is because we see the threat, and act, while others
>support appeasement (which never works).
That's one of many possible explanations.
>>>In my opinion though, many if not most
>>>people in this country are reactionary emotionalists, not something to
>>>based decisions on. However, the logical decision is that this war is
>>>ultimately for the betterment of both Iraq, and the stability of the
>>>region, while sending a clear message to other illegitimate regimes.
>>
>>
>> Again, the vast majority of the people on this planet disagree with
>> you on this. Since your conclusions are pure logic, this can only mean
>> that their axiom systems are different from yours, or that they do not
>> employ logic.
>
>I have stated several times why this war is to the betterment of Iraq
>and the region.
Yes, you did. So far, though, I have not seen a logical deduction,
which you claim not only exists, but to have performed yourself.
[snip]
>>>Regardless of the "interests" this war will have an overall positive effect.
>>
>>
>> Except for those whose interests do not prevail, of course. Like every
>> war since men started to kill each other on this planet.
>
>Well I doubt the Baath party interest will not be happy, but that's a
>good thing for the vast majority.
I would guess that at the very least those killed, and the people who
cared about them, might also be counted among those whose interests
did not prevail.
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>Right. The only thing that you do not seem to have the faintest clue
>>>>about is other points of view, and that the American view of the world
>>>>is but one of many.
>>>
>>>I never said that.
>>
>> No, you said something else. You said that your view is not even
>> American, it is The Truth, because it is based on Logic. This means
>> you are either not even aware of your bias, or you are too conceited
>> to admit to it. I do not know what is worse.
>
>See above about my "bias."
Your *bias* is visible all over the place, there is no need to point
to a specific piece of text. And this is not a bad thing
either---everybody has a bias. What makes is amusing are your little
attempts at denying it, and to rise above us all be becoming the
Harbinger of Truth and Logic. That's quite funny.
[snip]
>> That is nonsense. There are many things we did that many people all
>> over the planet are most thankful for. I lived in Berlin for a while,
>> and up until now, people there were extremely pro-American for the
>> many things that we did for the city and the country, most notably the
>> support of the city by air during the time of the Soviet embargo.
>> Americans were heroes in those days.
>
>We are going to do the same things for Iraq.
Let's defer this point until we have more information about what
happens after the war.
[snip]
>> However, if we ruthlessly continue to act exclusively in our own
>> national interests, ignoring international organizations which we
>> quite obviously only use when they are convenient, you can hardly
>> complain about people being increasingly critical of this country and
>> the people responsible for its government.
>
>The UN is an outdated dinosaur of the WW2/Cold War eras, it just doesn't
>know it's extinct yet. And it's moves to try to become a true "world
>government" are quite disturbing to me. It is far easier to have
>liberty, when there is more than one nation in existance. Yet that is
>exactly how the UN sees itself, as the Supreme Government of Earth.
>Thank goodness that they can't get their act together and actually get
>anything done.
Unfortunately, it seems that there is only one nation right now who
can afford to act without much regard for other nations. If nothing
else, you should at least realize that this situation is somewhat less
than satisfactory for those other nations, i.e. approx. 95% of the
world's population.
As a consequence, it would seem that these people see the need for an
institution that mediates between nations according to commonly
accepted standards. If you have a better idea than the U.N. (and a few
other mostly-ignored-by-the-U.S. institutions), I am sure many people
would be interested to hear about it. I would be.
RC
Jim Sculley
I guess you aren't aware of the massive technological, political,
environmental and psychological hurdles in designing, developing,
building and operating a chemical weapons disposal facility. The stuff
is easy to make. It isn't easy to get rid of.
Jim S.
Jim Sculley
> "Jim Sculley" <nic...@wisdomteeth.tlanta.com> wrote in message
> news:b6jur...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> advanced", isn't it?
Indeed. We do a little more than 'pour it into the sand' as the Iraqis
purport to have done.
> My guess is that USA isn't using it. It's just (conveniently) waiting
> for the "best used before" label to exipire.
Note I mentioned political, environmental, and psychological along with
technological. A CW disposal facility suffers from NIMBY (not in my
backyard). No one wantes the weapons around, but no one wants the
disposal faiclity near them either. Perhaps you should convince your
government to accept them for disposal. But I suspect you don't want
them in your backyard either.
Jim S.
Luke Tulkas
> > Should not be a problem for USA's technology. After all, it's the
"most
> > advanced", isn't it?
>
> Indeed. We do a little more than 'pour it into the sand' as the
Iraqis
> purport to have done.
>
> > My guess is that USA isn't using it. It's just (conveniently)
waiting
> > for the "best used before" label to exipire.
>
> Note I mentioned political, environmental, and psychological along
with
> technological. A CW disposal facility suffers from NIMBY (not in my
> backyard). No one wantes the weapons around, but no one wants the
> disposal faiclity near them either. Perhaps you should convince your
> government to accept them for disposal. But I suspect you don't want
> them in your backyard either.
You should have thought about that when (actually _before_) you produced
them. Moreover, I don't know of anybody who'd want to have a nuclear
power plant in their back yard. Nor the garbage dump. And still those
nuclear power plants and garbage dumps exist, don't they? When there's a
will, there's a way. I guess there's not enough will in case of CW
disposal. Why am I not surprised?
Dr Chaos
>> Note I mentioned political, environmental, and psychological along
> with
>> technological. A CW disposal facility suffers from NIMBY (not in my
>> backyard). No one wantes the weapons around, but no one wants the
>> disposal faiclity near them either. Perhaps you should convince your
>> government to accept them for disposal. But I suspect you don't want
>> them in your backyard either.
>
> You should have thought about that when (actually _before_) you produced
> them. Moreover, I don't know of anybody who'd want to have a nuclear
> power plant in their back yard. Nor the garbage dump. And still those
> nuclear power plants and garbage dumps exist, don't they? When there's a
> will, there's a way. I guess there's not enough will in case of CW
> disposal. Why am I not surprised?
The U.S. government and military which has this waste have a very
strong will to get rid of them and operate the plant at full throttle,
but it being thwarted by local governments and other institutions.
As the US is a federal system and not a dictatorship this causes delays
and difficulties.
There is a plant out in the boondocks in Utah which was constructed
at great expense to do exactly this.
LiamSlider
I'm saying that since the US has a no first nuclear strike policy that
this NATO document, essentially directed at the Soviet Union, was a most
likely a bluff, given that it is counter to said policy.
>
> Or is this how Logic a la Liam works: In order to prove a theorem, you
> just turn it into an axiom, and you are done.
>
> [snip]
>
>>>>The problem is that Arab media has always been heavily biased against
>>>>anything non-Arab.
>>>
>>>
>>>The same (well, the opposite) can be said about American media.
>>>However, we are not even arguing The Truth here, we are arguing what
>>>might be plausible motives behind actions. (Remember, this is what you
>>>are trying to say here.)
>>>
>>>All I am saying is that it seems unreasonable to assume that the Iraqi
>>>leadership shares your view of the world and then start to interpret
>>>their actions from that. A much better starting point is to try to
>>>understand their perspective from their media context, and this is not
>>>Fox News, CNN, and the New York Post.
>>
>>Their media is hyping up any slightest thing that can be used against
>>America, while staying quiet about the enemy atrocities. It's easy to
>>see why people ruled by emotionalism and idealism would be upset.
>
>
> Fortunately our media are bastions of objectivity that protect us from
> making the same mistakes, thereby allowing our superior logic to work
> out the right solution for everyone.
They tend to be more objective than the Arab media anyway.
>
> [snip]
>
>>>Not under all circumstances. People's attitudes change---just imagine
>>>the Iraqis start slaughtering our boys, and we see them torturing them
>>>on TV, dragging them through city streets etc. The whole shebang. How
>>>many pictures of that kind do you think we need on CNN for the
>>>American public to support the use of about any weapon on Iraq in
>>>order to end the war?
>>
>>By the simple fact that it won't happen, and couldn't happen.
>
>
> Probably not, but you have to assume that the Iraqi leadership is in
> the game to win. Therefore they will prepare for the eventuality that
> they do---if under these circumstances they see a reasonable chance
> that their opponents resort to, say, chemical weapons, it seems
> appropriate to equip their military accordingly.
Of course they are in the game to win, which is exactly why they are
more likely to *use* WMD (if they can, command and control in Iraq is a
bit of a mess right now), they are fighting for their survival and will
logically use whatever they can to win.
>
> [snip]
>
>>>Why do you think have many Americans supported the obliteration of two
>>>Japanese cities, and many still do?
>>
>>The situation is far different though, see above. The situation in Iraq
>>could never reach that kind of extreme by the most generous calculations.
>
>
> Again, you fail to see it from the perspective of the Iraqi
> leadership. You are assuming your judgments and motivations as theirs
> and argue from that. Quite naive, I think.
Do you honestly think that the Iraqi leadership believes that the
majority of Iraqi citizens are *that* dedicated to them? If they did why
would they need torture chambers, and why would they gas their own people?
I was explaining how I can seperate my views on the government from my
views on the war. I never claimed I was going to spell out the exact
logic there. However if you want it plain and simple... Therefore I will
list my assumptions and conclusions for you.
1) Living is generally a good thing.
2) Having liberty is essential to health and happiness.
3) Saddam does not give his people liberty, and takes many of their lives.
4) The aim of the war is to topple Saddam and the Baath party.
5) The force toppling Saddam and the Baath party is not interested in
slaughtering civilians.
6) The force toppling Saddam is not interested in suppressing the
liberty of the people.
Keeping Saddam and the Baath party in power therefore decreases life,
and suppresses liberty. Eliminating them will lower the amount of lives
lost and create a net increase in liberty, providing the force is
interested in liberation and not in slaughter and oppression. Given that
this appears to be the case it would seem that overall the effect of the
war is good. Also, as inaction allows Saddam and the Baath party to
remain in control, doing nothing is therefore bad. The war therefore, is
good.
Does this spell things out logically enough for you? Assuming that the
initial statements are true (and there is no reason to believe they are
not) the logical conclusion is obvious.
>
>
>>>And do you say you are impartial?
>>
>>I'd say given the above I'm as impartial as one can get, and still be
>>anti-oppression.
>
>
> "Impartial as *you* can get" would be more accurate.
Well, once the logical deduction is made there is a net decrease in
impartiality. But I can certainly claim that prior to the actual
deduction that I was absolutely impartial.
See above.
>
> [snip]
>
>>>>Regardless of the "interests" this war will have an overall positive effect.
>>>
>>>
>>>Except for those whose interests do not prevail, of course. Like every
>>>war since men started to kill each other on this planet.
>>
>>Well I doubt the Baath party interest will not be happy, but that's a
>>good thing for the vast majority.
>
>
> I would guess that at the very least those killed, and the people who
> cared about them, might also be counted among those whose interests
> did not prevail.
Depends on who's killed. With Baath party supporters you are probably
correct. However Coalition forces are clearly willing to give their
lives in nessessary to liberate Iraq. Therefore their deaths, so long as
they contribute to said liberation, will be within their interests.
>
>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Right. The only thing that you do not seem to have the faintest clue
>>>>>about is other points of view, and that the American view of the world
>>>>>is but one of many.
>>>>
>>>>I never said that.
>>>
>>>No, you said something else. You said that your view is not even
>>>American, it is The Truth, because it is based on Logic. This means
>>>you are either not even aware of your bias, or you are too conceited
>>>to admit to it. I do not know what is worse.
>>
>>See above about my "bias."
>
>
> Your *bias* is visible all over the place, there is no need to point
> to a specific piece of text. And this is not a bad thing
> either---everybody has a bias. What makes is amusing are your little
> attempts at denying it, and to rise above us all be becoming the
> Harbinger of Truth and Logic. That's quite funny.
Well I would agree that I have a bias, towards freedom and life, and
away from oppression and death.
>
> [snip]
>
>>>That is nonsense. There are many things we did that many people all
>>>over the planet are most thankful for. I lived in Berlin for a while,
>>>and up until now, people there were extremely pro-American for the
>>>many things that we did for the city and the country, most notably the
>>>support of the city by air during the time of the Soviet embargo.
>>>Americans were heroes in those days.
>>
>>We are going to do the same things for Iraq.
>
>
> Let's defer this point until we have more information about what
> happens after the war.
We've already stated that our plan is essentially the same.
>
> [snip]
>
>>>However, if we ruthlessly continue to act exclusively in our own
>>>national interests, ignoring international organizations which we
>>>quite obviously only use when they are convenient, you can hardly
>>>complain about people being increasingly critical of this country and
>>>the people responsible for its government.
>>
>>The UN is an outdated dinosaur of the WW2/Cold War eras, it just doesn't
>>know it's extinct yet. And it's moves to try to become a true "world
>>government" are quite disturbing to me. It is far easier to have
>>liberty, when there is more than one nation in existance. Yet that is
>>exactly how the UN sees itself, as the Supreme Government of Earth.
>>Thank goodness that they can't get their act together and actually get
>>anything done.
>
>
> Unfortunately, it seems that there is only one nation right now who
> can afford to act without much regard for other nations. If nothing
> else, you should at least realize that this situation is somewhat less
> than satisfactory for those other nations, i.e. approx. 95% of the
> world's population.
A nation is only responsable for acting in the interests of it's people,
defending said people and their rights, and holding true to as many of
it's commitments as possible. A nation is *not* necessarily responsable
for anyone outside of that.
>
> As a consequence, it would seem that these people see the need for an
> institution that mediates between nations according to commonly
> accepted standards. If you have a better idea than the U.N. (and a few
> other mostly-ignored-by-the-U.S. institutions), I am sure many people
> would be interested to hear about it. I would be
Why not limit it to said mediation and nothing else, and allowing force
when said mediation fails? The UN is not limited to those things. Why
must it form itself into a full fledged meta-government?
Jim Sculley
<snip>
>
>
> You should have thought about that when (actually _before_) you produced
> them.
Sure. Like the East Germans thought about the impact of unfettered
strip mining and burning of lignite. I'll leave it as an exercise to the
reader to determine which has caused more damage in the past 30 years.
> Moreover, I don't know of anybody who'd want to have a nuclear
> power plant in their back yard.
Why? Do you suffer under the delusion that they are unsafe? Having
spent two days this week in and around the largest nuclear power plant
in the U.S., I would say I know a bit more about it than you. The folks
who live near these facilities are glad to have them. They provide
thousands of jobs to the local community with little to no impact on the
environment.
> Nor the garbage dump.
And just look at the public outrage that arises when a new one is proposed.
> And still those
> nuclear power plants and garbage dumps exist, don't they?
There hasn't been a new nuclear power plant built in the United States
in the past 20 years. In fact, many were abandoned mid-construction.
Largely for the same reason there aren't more CW disposal facilities.
NIMBY cries from an ignorant public.
> When there's a
> will, there's a way. I guess there's not enough will in case of CW
> disposal.
Says the guy who thinks a six conventional explosive missle per day
disposal rate is real progress.
Jim S.
Luke Tulkas
> > You should have thought about that when (actually _before_) you
produced
> > them.
>
> Sure. Like the East Germans thought about the impact of unfettered
> strip mining and burning of lignite. I'll leave it as an exercise to
the
> reader to determine which has caused more damage in the past 30 years.
Well, reader, take a shot. ;)
> > Moreover, I don't know of anybody who'd want to have a nuclear
> > power plant in their back yard.
>
> Why? Do you suffer under the delusion that they are unsafe?
Suffer under the delusion? Nah. I _know_ they're unsafe.
> Having
> spent two days this week in and around the largest nuclear power plant
> in the U.S., I would say I know a bit more about it than you.
Of the insides? Sure. I'd never go close to one. Let alone _into_ one.
> The folks
> who live near these facilities are glad to have them.
That's a joke, right?
> They provide
> thousands of jobs to the local community with little to no impact on
the
> environment.
Erm... no. That doesn't "compute". The impact is tremendous. Maybe not
right now, but surely when the time comes to disassemble the plant,
having to store the waste "fuel" someplace safe and those same people,
facing the termination of their jobs, start screaming NIMBY.
> > Nor the garbage dump.
>
> And just look at the public outrage that arises when a new one is
proposed.
Right on. But still, a new one is... what's the word... opened? Well,
you know what I mean. New garbage dumps are being established regularly.
It's not like no new one was established in the past 30 years. So... I
think that people's NIMBYs were... overruled.
> > When there's a
> > will, there's a way. I guess there's not enough will in case of CW
> > disposal.
>
> Says the guy who thinks a six conventional explosive missle per day
> disposal rate is real progress.
Says the guy, who knows the difference between US technology (&
capability) and the Iraqi one(s). I think it's safe to say that neither
are too eager to dispose their CWs.
Jim Sculley
<snip>
>
> Suffer under the delusion? Nah. I _know_ they're unsafe.
Evidence? I suspect you don't know much about nuclear reactors at all.
>
>
>>Having
>>spent two days this week in and around the largest nuclear power plant
>>in the U.S., I would say I know a bit more about it than you.
>
>
> Of the insides? Sure. I'd never go close to one. Let alone _into_ one.
Why on Earth not? Are you aware that the amount of radiation a nuclear
plant employee is allowed to be exposed to per year is less than the
amount recevied getting a chest x-ray?
>
>
>>The folks
>>who live near these facilities are glad to have them.
>
>
> That's a joke, right?
Nope. Good for the local economy. Good for the local environment.
Most U.S plants are located near large population centers.
>
>
>>They provide
>>thousands of jobs to the local community with little to no impact on
>
> the
>
>>environment.
>
>
> Erm... no. That doesn't "compute". The impact is tremendous. Maybe not
> right now, but surely when the time comes to disassemble the plant,
> having to store the waste "fuel" someplace safe and those same people,
> facing the termination of their jobs, start screaming NIMBY.
Bzzzzzt. Wrong Luke. The amount of power yielded from a single pellet
of uranium dioxide is equivalent to 1800 lbs of coal, or 200 gallons of
oil. Disassembling of plants is happening right now. The only hurdle
is where to put the spent fuel and the disassembled plants. Many viable
options exist, most of which are being complained about by ignorant
environmentalists.
>
>
>>>Nor the garbage dump.
>>
>>And just look at the public outrage that arises when a new one is
>
> proposed.
>
> Right on. But still, a new one is... what's the word... opened? Well,
> you know what I mean. New garbage dumps are being established regularly.
> It's not like no new one was established in the past 30 years. So... I
> think that people's NIMBYs were... overruled.
Did you have a point? A nuclear power plant costs an order of magnitude
more than a garbage dump to build. It should come as no surprise to
find thta investors are less likely to back a plant than a dump when
there is the constant spectre of nuisance lawsuits delaying the project
and causing the costs to skyrocket.
>
>
>>>When there's a
>>>will, there's a way. I guess there's not enough will in case of CW
>>>disposal.
>>
>>Says the guy who thinks a six conventional explosive missle per day
>>disposal rate is real progress.
>
>
> Says the guy, who knows the difference between US technology (&
> capability) and the Iraqi one(s). I think it's safe to say that neither
> are too eager to dispose their CWs.
The U.S. government isn't preventing the destruction of CW. Public
opinion is. This is a simple fact.
Jim S.
--
Remove my extraneous mandibular appendages to reply via e-mail.
LiamSlider
<snip>
>>
>> Erm... no. That doesn't "compute". The impact is tremendous. Maybe not
>> right now, but surely when the time comes to disassemble the plant,
>> having to store the waste "fuel" someplace safe and those same people,
>> facing the termination of their jobs, start screaming NIMBY.
>
>
> Bzzzzzt. Wrong Luke. The amount of power yielded from a single pellet
> of uranium dioxide is equivalent to 1800 lbs of coal, or 200 gallons of
> oil. Disassembling of plants is happening right now. The only hurdle
> is where to put the spent fuel and the disassembled plants. Many viable
> options exist, most of which are being complained about by ignorant
> environmentalists.
Yeah, including recycling their own waste for fuel. It can be done, at
least so a nuclear engineer once told me. But the environmentalists get
upset at anything nuclear so nothing's been done there.
Mark Thornton
>
> Yeah, including recycling their own waste for fuel. It can be done, at
> least so a nuclear engineer once told me. But the environmentalists get
> upset at anything nuclear so nothing's been done there.
>
Both Britain and France ran fast breeder reactor projects for years.
Ultimately they couldn't get it to work reliably at an economic cost. The
projects were started at a time when uranium was rare and expensive (i.e.
before many of the large discoveries in Australia and elsewhere). The
increase in availability and corresponding drop in cost of uranium killed
the viability of the fast breeder at least for the next few centuries.
The reprocessing required also generates significant quantities of waste, so
there isn't much saving there.
Mark Thornton
Mark Thornton
> Luke Tulkas wrote:
>
>
> Why? Do you suffer under the delusion that they are unsafe? Having
> spent two days this week in and around the largest nuclear power plant
> in the U.S., I would say I know a bit more about it than you. The folks
> who live near these facilities are glad to have them. They provide
> thousands of jobs to the local community with little to no impact on the
> environment.
How about Windscale and Chernobyl. Some farm land here (UK) is STILL out of
production due to the lingering effects of Chernobyl. In practice it doesn't
matter much what the safety of current reactors is, after decades of lies
from government and the nuclear industry no one believes them and who can
blame the public for that. In any case current electricity prices here are
far below the level required for economic nuclear power.
Mark Thornton
James A. Robertson
<m.p.th...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Jim Sculley" <nic...@wisdomteeth.tlanta.com> wrote in message
>news:b6kn0...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> Luke Tulkas wrote:
>>
>>
>> Why? Do you suffer under the delusion that they are unsafe? Having
>> spent two days this week in and around the largest nuclear power plant
>> in the U.S., I would say I know a bit more about it than you. The folks
>> who live near these facilities are glad to have them. They provide
>> thousands of jobs to the local community with little to no impact on the
>> environment.
>
Chenobyl was pathological. Bad design, people ignoring standard
safety protocols. You might as well bring up the early 19th century
firestorm that destroyed Galveston, TX as an example of how oil power
is too dangerous.
>How about Windscale and Chernobyl. Some farm land here (UK) is STILL out of
>production due to the lingering effects of Chernobyl. In practice it doesn't
>matter much what the safety of current reactors is, after decades of lies
>from government and the nuclear industry no one believes them and who can
>blame the public for that. In any case current electricity prices here are
>far below the level required for economic nuclear power.
>
>Mark Thornton
>
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView
Mark Thornton
"James A. Robertson" <jar...@gosmalltalk.com> wrote in message
news:sl609v4clm8bio46h...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 09:43:18 +0100, "Mark Thornton"
> <m.p.th...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jim Sculley" <nic...@wisdomteeth.tlanta.com> wrote in message
> >news:b6kn0...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> >> Luke Tulkas wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Why? Do you suffer under the delusion that they are unsafe? Having
> >> spent two days this week in and around the largest nuclear power plant
> >> in the U.S., I would say I know a bit more about it than you. The
folks
> >> who live near these facilities are glad to have them. They provide
> >> thousands of jobs to the local community with little to no impact on
the
> >> environment.
> >
>
> Chenobyl was pathological. Bad design, people ignoring standard
> safety protocols. You might as well bring up the early 19th century
> firestorm that destroyed Galveston, TX as an example of how oil power
> is too dangerous.
Except that Chernobyl happened within living memory and continues to affect
people in Europe. Nor is it the only example of poor design and ignoring
safety protocols (e.g. the incident in Japan a few years ago, as well as the
Windscale incident). But my main point was that the science/engineering no
longer matters, it is the loss of trust which is fatal to the further
development of nuclear power.
Mark Thornton
Richard Caul
<li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>Richard Caul wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 12:28:22 -0600, LiamSlider
>> <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> Hm, but isn't this what you are currently *claiming*? I replied with
>> pointing out *the* corner stone of NATO's strategy, "flexible
>> response", which explicitly threatens a nuclear first strike, and has
>> been endorsed by all NATO governments, including the U.S. Wouldn't you
>> now have to produce some shred of actual *evidence* supporting your
>> claim, rather than reiterating the claim as proof?
>
>I'm saying that since the US has a no first nuclear strike policy that
>this NATO document, essentially directed at the Soviet Union, was a most
>likely a bluff, given that it is counter to said policy.
But you *did* notice, did you not, that I expressed doubt as to the
*premise* of your implication, specifically the claim that the U.S.
has a policy against nuclear first strikes.
This still has to be demonstrated by you, and preferably in such a way
as to not suggest that the U.S. is signing international communiques
that are directly opposed to its national policies.
[To be serious here for a moment, Liam: What you claim is utter
nonsense. The U.S. defense strategy, and indeed that of the Western
world, has for a long time been based on the first use of WMD---as
you'd know if you knew the first thing about any of this. Your
attempts at arguing otherwise have so far not only discredited your
knowledge about modern history, they also cast some doubt on your
proclaimed role as Master Logician, as all of them were directly
circular.]
[snip]
>> Fortunately our media are bastions of objectivity that protect us from
>> making the same mistakes, thereby allowing our superior logic to work
>> out the right solution for everyone.
>
>They tend to be more objective than the Arab media anyway.
As measured by Liam's Object-o-Meter(tm)?
[snip]
>> Probably not, but you have to assume that the Iraqi leadership is in
>> the game to win. Therefore they will prepare for the eventuality that
>> they do---if under these circumstances they see a reasonable chance
>> that their opponents resort to, say, chemical weapons, it seems
>> appropriate to equip their military accordingly.
>
>Of course they are in the game to win, which is exactly why they are
>more likely to *use* WMD (if they can, command and control in Iraq is a
>bit of a mess right now), they are fighting for their survival and will
>logically use whatever they can to win.
Hm, but if someone who is fighting for survival is *logically* (as
approved by Liam) using "whatever they can to win", would this not
imply that so would we, if our troops were fighting for survival (as
per my hypothesis)?
[snip]
> I never claimed I was going to spell out the exact
>logic there. However if you want it plain and simple... Therefore I will
>list my assumptions and conclusions for you.
>
>1) Living is generally a good thing.
>
>2) Having liberty is essential to health and happiness.
>
>3) Saddam does not give his people liberty, and takes many of their lives.
>
>4) The aim of the war is to topple Saddam and the Baath party.
>
>5) The force toppling Saddam and the Baath party is not interested in
>slaughtering civilians.
>
>6) The force toppling Saddam is not interested in suppressing the
>liberty of the people.
>
>Keeping Saddam and the Baath party in power therefore decreases life,
>and suppresses liberty. Eliminating them will lower the amount of lives
>lost and create a net increase in liberty, providing the force is
>interested in liberation and not in slaughter and oppression. Given that
>this appears to be the case it would seem that overall the effect of the
>war is good. Also, as inaction allows Saddam and the Baath party to
>remain in control, doing nothing is therefore bad. The war therefore, is
>good.
Sounds like those proofs that God exists or doesn't exist. If you
think that the above has anything to do with logic, check this out:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1568811357/
>Does this spell things out logically enough for you? Assuming that the
>initial statements are true (and there is no reason to believe they are
>not) the logical conclusion is obvious.
Odd that so many people fail to see this. Why do you think this is?
Are you smarter than they are?
>>>>And do you say you are impartial?
>>>
>>>I'd say given the above I'm as impartial as one can get, and still be
>>>anti-oppression.
>>
>>
>> "Impartial as *you* can get" would be more accurate.
>
>Well, once the logical deduction is made there is a net decrease in
>impartiality. But I can certainly claim that prior to the actual
>deduction that I was absolutely impartial.
Of course you can claim that. In fact, you have done so repeatedly,
which is conclusive proof that you can.
[snip]
>>>>>Regardless of the "interests" this war will have an overall positive effect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Except for those whose interests do not prevail, of course. Like every
>>>>war since men started to kill each other on this planet.
>>>
>>>Well I doubt the Baath party interest will not be happy, but that's a
>>>good thing for the vast majority.
>>
>>
>> I would guess that at the very least those killed, and the people who
>> cared about them, might also be counted among those whose interests
>> did not prevail.
>
>Depends on who's killed. With Baath party supporters you are probably
>correct. However Coalition forces are clearly willing to give their
>lives in nessessary to liberate Iraq. Therefore their deaths, so long as
> they contribute to said liberation, will be within their interests.
I guess this means you have never actually stood on a field of battle,
right?
What about all these other people who are neither wholehearted
supporters of the Baath party, nor valiant Knights of Truth and
Liberty, but normal guys and gals on both sides who found themselves
wearing a uniform for one reason or another and all of a sudden in the
midst of a battle where people were shooting live ammo at them?
Or those who had a tea in the evening when all of a sudden a bomb
dropped through their roof and made all their plans for the next day
irrelevant?
[snip]
>>>>That is nonsense. There are many things we did that many people all
>>>>over the planet are most thankful for. I lived in Berlin for a while,
>>>>and up until now, people there were extremely pro-American for the
>>>>many things that we did for the city and the country, most notably the
>>>>support of the city by air during the time of the Soviet embargo.
>>>>Americans were heroes in those days.
>>>
>>>We are going to do the same things for Iraq.
>>
>>
>> Let's defer this point until we have more information about what
>> happens after the war.
>
>We've already stated that our plan is essentially the same.
But not everybody believes what "we" say about "our" plans. Nor should
they.
[snip]
>>>The UN is an outdated dinosaur of the WW2/Cold War eras, it just doesn't
>>>know it's extinct yet. And it's moves to try to become a true "world
>>>government" are quite disturbing to me. It is far easier to have
>>>liberty, when there is more than one nation in existance. Yet that is
>>>exactly how the UN sees itself, as the Supreme Government of Earth.
>>>Thank goodness that they can't get their act together and actually get
>>>anything done.
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, it seems that there is only one nation right now who
>> can afford to act without much regard for other nations. If nothing
>> else, you should at least realize that this situation is somewhat less
>> than satisfactory for those other nations, i.e. approx. 95% of the
>> world's population.
>
>A nation is only responsable for acting in the interests of it's people,
>defending said people and their rights, and holding true to as many of
>it's commitments as possible. A nation is *not* necessarily responsable
>for anyone outside of that.
It is precisely this rejection of values, rules, institutions,
interests and, yes, "responsability" beyond the limit of the U.S.
constitution and the U.S. citizenship that makes us look the way we
look to other countries. If the views you espouse above indeed
represent the majority of our fellow citizens (and there is all reason
to believe they do), the rest of the world is even right in their
judgment about us. Scary thought.
>> As a consequence, it would seem that these people see the need for an
>> institution that mediates between nations according to commonly
>> accepted standards. If you have a better idea than the U.N. (and a few
>> other mostly-ignored-by-the-U.S. institutions), I am sure many people
>> would be interested to hear about it. I would be
>
>Why not limit it to said mediation and nothing else, and allowing force
>when said mediation fails? The UN is not limited to those things. Why
>must it form itself into a full fledged meta-government?
Well, an institution that tries to mediate among parties who will only
turn to it when the predicted outcome is in their favor, and who will
unilaterally interpret the results of those mediations in ways that
are compatible with their own interests, it seems that more is
required to make this a useful exercise. It seems that such an
institution would need the capability to reign in unilateralism by
*all* sides, not only by its weaker members. The U.N. does not have
that capability, and consequently relies on its stronger members to
honor its 'will' without coercion. It has become abundantly clear that
this is just something the rest of its membership cannot count on. And
so they probably won't.
RC
Jim Sculley
No plant in the United States (which has the most of any country) has
been designed/built that can have an incident such as
Chernobyl/Windscale. All U.S. plants are Light Water Reactors (LWRs)
which are inherently safe because the coolant is also the moderator. A
loss of coolant will result in an end to the chain reaction, as the
Three Mile Island incident showed. That the Russians/Brits chose to
implement an inherently unsafe design when better alternatives existed
is tragic, but says little about the safety of nuclear power.
LiamSlider
I would like to see your evidence, other than this NATO document, that
says we have a first strike policy. Since you are claiming such exists,
appairently in massive amounts, you shouldn't object to giving it.
> [snip]
>
>>>Fortunately our media are bastions of objectivity that protect us from
>>>making the same mistakes, thereby allowing our superior logic to work
>>>out the right solution for everyone.
>>
>>They tend to be more objective than the Arab media anyway.
>
>
> As measured by Liam's Object-o-Meter(tm)?
Well, the Arab media has reported only those things that will anger
Arabs appairently. The American media *has* shown both sides, especially
pre-war, with reporters talking to "average" Iraqi families, reports on
the Iraqi Symphony, reports on their war memorials.... The media had
tended to be rather anti-war to begin with. But still, even then, they
are more objective than the Arab media.
>
> [snip]
>
>>>Probably not, but you have to assume that the Iraqi leadership is in
>>>the game to win. Therefore they will prepare for the eventuality that
>>>they do---if under these circumstances they see a reasonable chance
>>>that their opponents resort to, say, chemical weapons, it seems
>>>appropriate to equip their military accordingly.
>>
>>Of course they are in the game to win, which is exactly why they are
>>more likely to *use* WMD (if they can, command and control in Iraq is a
>>bit of a mess right now), they are fighting for their survival and will
>>logically use whatever they can to win.
>
>
> Hm, but if someone who is fighting for survival is *logically* (as
> approved by Liam) using "whatever they can to win", would this not
> imply that so would we, if our troops were fighting for survival (as
> per my hypothesis)?
There is a difference between a regime (especially one known for use of
WMD in both warfare and against civilians) fighting for it's very
survival, and some soldiers, fighting in combat, who may or may not
survive. To the USA this isn't a win or die scenario, to the Iraqi
government it is.
>
> [snip]
>
>>I never claimed I was going to spell out the exact
>>logic there. However if you want it plain and simple... Therefore I will
>>list my assumptions and conclusions for you.
>>
>>1) Living is generally a good thing.
>>
>>2) Having liberty is essential to health and happiness.
>>
>>3) Saddam does not give his people liberty, and takes many of their lives.
>>
>>4) The aim of the war is to topple Saddam and the Baath party.
>>
>>5) The force toppling Saddam and the Baath party is not interested in
>>slaughtering civilians.
>>
>>6) The force toppling Saddam is not interested in suppressing the
>>liberty of the people.
>>
>>Keeping Saddam and the Baath party in power therefore decreases life,
>>and suppresses liberty. Eliminating them will lower the amount of lives
>>lost and create a net increase in liberty, providing the force is
>>interested in liberation and not in slaughter and oppression. Given that
>>this appears to be the case it would seem that overall the effect of the
>>war is good. Also, as inaction allows Saddam and the Baath party to
>>remain in control, doing nothing is therefore bad. The war therefore, is
>>good.
>
>
> Sounds like those proofs that God exists or doesn't exist. If you
> think that the above has anything to do with logic, check this out:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1568811357/
Oh so logic *must* be specifically mathematical and have nothing to do
with reason and thinking. Just pure math. You are such an idiot.
>
>
>>Does this spell things out logically enough for you? Assuming that the
>>initial statements are true (and there is no reason to believe they are
>>not) the logical conclusion is obvious.
>
>
> Odd that so many people fail to see this. Why do you think this is?
> Are you smarter than they are?
According to the tests, yes, yes I am.
<snip>
>>Depends on who's killed. With Baath party supporters you are probably
>>correct. However Coalition forces are clearly willing to give their
>>lives in nessessary to liberate Iraq. Therefore their deaths, so long as
>> they contribute to said liberation, will be within their interests.
>
>
> I guess this means you have never actually stood on a field of battle,
> right?
If you mean as a soldier in a war, you would be correct. Have you?
>
> What about all these other people who are neither wholehearted
> supporters of the Baath party, nor valiant Knights of Truth and
> Liberty, but normal guys and gals on both sides who found themselves
> wearing a uniform for one reason or another and all of a sudden in the
> midst of a battle where people were shooting live ammo at them?
So, because the interests of a few people, we should stop a war that
furthers the interests of a vastly greater number? That is not a very
reasonable view.
>
> Or those who had a tea in the evening when all of a sudden a bomb
> dropped through their roof and made all their plans for the next day
> irrelevant?
Again...
>
> [snip]
>
>>>>>That is nonsense. There are many things we did that many people all
>>>>>over the planet are most thankful for. I lived in Berlin for a while,
>>>>>and up until now, people there were extremely pro-American for the
>>>>>many things that we did for the city and the country, most notably the
>>>>>support of the city by air during the time of the Soviet embargo.
>>>>>Americans were heroes in those days.
>>>>
>>>>We are going to do the same things for Iraq.
>>>
>>>
>>>Let's defer this point until we have more information about what
>>>happens after the war.
>>
>>We've already stated that our plan is essentially the same.
>
>
> But not everybody believes what "we" say about "our" plans. Nor should
> they.
Why shouldn't they?
> [snip]
>
>>>>The UN is an outdated dinosaur of the WW2/Cold War eras, it just doesn't
>>>>know it's extinct yet. And it's moves to try to become a true "world
>>>>government" are quite disturbing to me. It is far easier to have
>>>>liberty, when there is more than one nation in existance. Yet that is
>>>>exactly how the UN sees itself, as the Supreme Government of Earth.
>>>>Thank goodness that they can't get their act together and actually get
>>>>anything done.
>>>
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, it seems that there is only one nation right now who
>>>can afford to act without much regard for other nations. If nothing
>>>else, you should at least realize that this situation is somewhat less
>>>than satisfactory for those other nations, i.e. approx. 95% of the
>>>world's population.
>>
>>A nation is only responsable for acting in the interests of it's people,
>>defending said people and their rights, and holding true to as many of
>>it's commitments as possible. A nation is *not* necessarily responsable
>>for anyone outside of that.
>
>
> It is precisely this rejection of values, rules, institutions,
> interests and, yes, "responsability" beyond the limit of the U.S.
> constitution and the U.S. citizenship that makes us look the way we
> look to other countries. If the views you espouse above indeed
> represent the majority of our fellow citizens (and there is all reason
> to believe they do), the rest of the world is even right in their
> judgment about us. Scary thought.
So you are saying that the USA must hold it's policies and hold to the
will of people who are not citizens of said country and do not vote? You
are saying that the US must obey the interests of say...the French? Why?
No other country has to.
>
>
>>>As a consequence, it would seem that these people see the need for an
>>>institution that mediates between nations according to commonly
>>>accepted standards. If you have a better idea than the U.N. (and a few
>>>other mostly-ignored-by-the-U.S. institutions), I am sure many people
>>>would be interested to hear about it. I would be
>>
>>Why not limit it to said mediation and nothing else, and allowing force
>>when said mediation fails? The UN is not limited to those things. Why
>>must it form itself into a full fledged meta-government?
>
>
> Well, an institution that tries to mediate among parties who will only
> turn to it when the predicted outcome is in their favor, and who will
> unilaterally interpret the results of those mediations in ways that
> are compatible with their own interests, it seems that more is
> required to make this a useful exercise. It seems that such an
> institution would need the capability to reign in unilateralism by
> *all* sides, not only by its weaker members. The U.N. does not have
> that capability, and consequently relies on its stronger members to
> honor its 'will' without coercion. It has become abundantly clear that
> this is just something the rest of its membership cannot count on. And
> so they probably won't.
Hmmm, perhaps the best answer then would be a straightforward
dissolution of the United Nations. We got along well without it for
centuries, and it has proven itself time and time again to be an utterly
useless group. And it has never suceeded at it's primary goal,
prevention of war.
Richard Caul
<li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
What was wrong with that document? Has the U.S. not signed it? Is it
not valid? Has any U.S. government since then limited our commitment
to it?
IOW, why is this not evidence?
> Since you are claiming such exists,
>appairently in massive amounts, you shouldn't object to giving it.
Well, for one thing, I *have* already given evidence, in the form of
the NATO document formulating the modern NATO defense strategy. I
thought at that point it would have been about time for *you* to
provide some evidence for your conjecture. But maybe your culture of
argument is about as idiosyncratic as your logic.
Since you insist on having your ignorance exposed, here is some more
for you, more or less randomly picked from the vast amount stuff that
you find on this topic if only you want to:
- First-strike options during the Berlin crisis
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB56/
- Letter by Lee Butler to Joschka Fischer
"I ultimately concluded that whatever the utility of a First Use
policy during the Cold War, it is entirely inappropriate to the new
global security environment; worse, it is counterproductive to the
goal of nonproliferation and antithetical to the values of democratic
societies." [This one is particularly interesting as Butler expresses
a similar judgment about Gulf I as you did about the current
situation---even though, you will notice, it is based on the
assumption that we are superior and will win either way, and thus does
not, ultimately, address my hypothetical.]
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/butl1298.htm
- "U.S. Expands Nuclear First-Strike Policy"
http://www.stratfor.com/standard/analysis_view.php?ID=203257
[Stratfor, 22 Feb 02, membership req'd]
- Policy statement by Secretary of State Warren Christopher (read past
the "except in the case")
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/negsa95.htm
- "The European Union and a Nuclear Security and Defense Policy"
'Joschka Fischer, the coalition foreign minister and Green party
member, proposed a rethinking of NATO's nuclear strategy as soon as he
took power, "to lower the alert status of [NATO's] nuclear weapons and
for a renunciation of the first-use of nuclear weapons." The United
States and other allies reacted negatively to Fischer's statements,
noting that the ambiguity and flexibility of NATO's strategy enhances
deterrence and helps keep the peace.'
http://www.usafa.af.mil/inss/krupnickdeter.doc
http://www.usafa.af.mil/inss/nuctitle.htm
If it hasn't become clear to you (and your uber-informed, rational
mind) now that you know next to nothing about this subject, I do not
know how to make it any clearer.
[snip]
>> Hm, but if someone who is fighting for survival is *logically* (as
>> approved by Liam) using "whatever they can to win", would this not
>> imply that so would we, if our troops were fighting for survival (as
>> per my hypothesis)?
>
>There is a difference between a regime (especially one known for use of
>WMD in both warfare and against civilians) fighting for it's very
>survival, and some soldiers, fighting in combat, who may or may not
>survive. To the USA this isn't a win or die scenario, to the Iraqi
>government it is.
And as I have already documented in the same thread (to Otis), in 1945
the U.S. government opted for the use of nuclear weapons in precisely
that kind of situation. It seems, if you read the Butler letter, that
they at least considered it in Gulf I, but concluded it was useless
and would alienate our allies. Interestingly, none of the reasons
Butler gave involved Iraqi civilians.
[snip]
>> Sounds like those proofs that God exists or doesn't exist. If you
>> think that the above has anything to do with logic, check this out:
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1568811357/
>
>Oh so logic *must* be specifically mathematical and have nothing to do
>with reason and thinking. Just pure math.
It has everything to do with reason and thinking, but nothing with
judgment and subjectivity---that, my friend, is the point of
mathematical logic. Like so many before you, you try to disguise your
subjectivity in the terms of "logic" to make it sound like something
it is not---objective truth. Unfortunately for you, you are not even
very good at it.
The only thing that interests me here is whether you are using this
nonsense about objectivity as an inexpertly applied rhetorical device,
or whether you are actually believing it yourself---iow, I am trying
to find out whether you are plain dishonest or a conceited redneck.
> You are such an idiot.
I will conclude, then, that you have nothing more of value to add to
this debate.
>>>Does this spell things out logically enough for you? Assuming that the
>>>initial statements are true (and there is no reason to believe they are
>>>not) the logical conclusion is obvious.
>>
>>
>> Odd that so many people fail to see this. Why do you think this is?
>> Are you smarter than they are?
>
>According to the tests, yes, yes I am.
That's a good one Liam, I like it.
>>>Depends on who's killed. With Baath party supporters you are probably
>>>correct. However Coalition forces are clearly willing to give their
>>>lives in nessessary to liberate Iraq. Therefore their deaths, so long as
>>> they contribute to said liberation, will be within their interests.
>>
>>
>> I guess this means you have never actually stood on a field of battle,
>> right?
>
>If you mean as a soldier in a war,
Or as a correspondent? An innocent bystander? Anything that gave you
first-hand access to people in combat, and their views about their
imminent death.
> you would be correct. Have you?
Yes, I have.
[snip things we did for Berlin]
>>>>>We are going to do the same things for Iraq.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Let's defer this point until we have more information about what
>>>>happens after the war.
>>>
>>>We've already stated that our plan is essentially the same.
>>
>>
>> But not everybody believes what "we" say about "our" plans. Nor should
>> they.
>
>Why shouldn't they?
Because "we" might be lying.
[snip]
>> It is precisely this rejection of values, rules, institutions,
>> interests and, yes, "responsability" beyond the limit of the U.S.
>> constitution and the U.S. citizenship that makes us look the way we
>> look to other countries. If the views you espouse above indeed
>> represent the majority of our fellow citizens (and there is all reason
>> to believe they do), the rest of the world is even right in their
>> judgment about us. Scary thought.
>
>So you are saying that the USA must hold it's policies and hold to the
>will of people who are not citizens of said country and do not vote? You
>are saying that the US must obey the interests of say...the French? Why?
>
>No other country has to.
No country has to. But if no country respects the interests of other
countries, and only sees itself answerable to its domestic population,
then this increases the probability of armed conflicts. Which is why
people started creating international institutions.
There is of course also the notion of ethical responsibility, but
since I am pessimistic about making you understand that point, I won't
even get started.
Perhaps a more practical point would be: If we are interested in
reducing the probability of further terrorist attacks against the
U.S., we might want to consider not interfering with other people's
lives all over the planet just because we somehow see some of our
interests threatened, or perhaps feel that we have been given this
"right" by our superior rational minds, according to the tests.
[snip]
>> Well, an institution that tries to mediate among parties who will only
>> turn to it when the predicted outcome is in their favor, and who will
>> unilaterally interpret the results of those mediations in ways that
>> are compatible with their own interests, it seems that more is
>> required to make this a useful exercise. It seems that such an
>> institution would need the capability to reign in unilateralism by
>> *all* sides, not only by its weaker members. The U.N. does not have
>> that capability, and consequently relies on its stronger members to
>> honor its 'will' without coercion. It has become abundantly clear that
>> this is just something the rest of its membership cannot count on. And
>> so they probably won't.
>
>Hmmm, perhaps the best answer then would be a straightforward
>dissolution of the United Nations. We got along well without it for
>centuries, and it has proven itself time and time again to be an utterly
>useless group. And it has never suceeded at it's primary goal,
>prevention of war.
I guess this is an "answer" only in Liam's Logic---you might want to
look back at the past centuries, and adjust whatever casualties you
find for the factors prevalent in modern warfare. Make sure you add a
few more skyscrapers in L.A., San Francisco, New York and Chicago, for
good measure, and perhaps the odd dirty bomb. If your notion that we
do not need to respect the rest of the world truly prevails in this
country, I just hope it won't take too many of those to make us think
otherwise.
RC
Bill Bonde
Nuclear power is the lowest cost sustainable form of power available. By
building smaller plants than are currently standard and building them
underground in large redundant many reactor complexes, safety will not
be a problem. Power could be dispersed to the entire United States using
high voltage DC technology. Local hubs could convert water in the area
to hydrogen, methane and ethanol for various portable uses.
--
"You can't make a race horse of a pig."
"No, but you can make a very fast pig."
-+John Steinbeck, "East of Eden"
Mark Thornton
"Bill Bonde" <sst...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3E910981...@backpacker.com...
I don't dispute that, but it still leaves 3 major problems.
1) Gas powered stations currently produce power much more cheaply. Of course
it isn't sustainable, but it has still led the British nuclear power
generator to the edge of bankruptcy.
2) The public don't trust the nuclear industry. While the distrust may not
be justified today, it remains a significant obstacle.
3) Waste. No one wants it in their backyard. Until the (largely politcal)
problems of waste disposal are solved and costed the economics of nuclear
power can only be guessed.
Mark Thornton
Bill Bonde
We would subsidize these nuclear power plants at the national level. I
believe something like 50 billion a year would be plenty to get them
built. They last for a very long time and this infrastructure would
jump-start the American economy big time.
> 2) The public don't trust the nuclear industry. While the distrust may not
> be justified today, it remains a significant obstacle.
>
I was going to put them all underground in one location in the centre of
the country. They don't have to be near any population centres although
some city might like the idea that that they can have all the free heat
they want. That would jump start that city big time too.
> 3) Waste. No one wants it in their backyard. Until the (largely politcal)
> problems of waste disposal are solved and costed the economics of nuclear
> power can only be guessed.
>
The permanent storage of high level waste is really a non-issue from a
technical and environmental standpoint. The real dangers, which people
seem to ignore, are at places like Hanford which is currently leaking
nuclear waste into the groundwater and from there to the Columbia river.
That is an environmental catastrophe.
Luke Tulkas
> Luke Tulkas wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Suffer under the delusion? Nah. I _know_ they're unsafe.
>
> Evidence? I suspect you don't know much about nuclear reactors at
all.
And he says "evidence".
Well, I don't know how I could prove they're unsafe. "They" _tell_ us
that thay're safe. Until the first accident, that is. Was Three miles
not "safe" (like in: did you build an unsafe plant on purpose)? Or
Tchernobil? There are beaches in UK with sand so radioactive that it
represents a serious health hazard just walking there. And there hasn't
been any disasters there (like aforementioned ones in US and Ukraine)! I
can't imagine what would happen if those disasters occured!
Having highly radioactive substances in a container separated from the
envoronment where people live, just by one metre thick wall, can't be
safe. You can call it that, you can set up paperwork that says so, but
that doesn't alter the facts.
> >>Having
> >>spent two days this week in and around the largest nuclear power
plant
> >>in the U.S., I would say I know a bit more about it than you.
> >
> >
> > Of the insides? Sure. I'd never go close to one. Let alone _into_
one.
>
> Why on Earth not? Are you aware that the amount of radiation a
nuclear
> plant employee is allowed to be exposed to per year is less than the
> amount recevied getting a chest x-ray?
Allowed? That's _paperwork_, Jim. I bet paperwork existed in Three miles
and Tchernobil. You can't tell a powerplant that it's allowed to produce
"just so much" radioactivity and / or nuclear waste. In other words:
computers make mistakes. And, most importantly, _people_ make them, too.
You can wipe your arse with that paperwork for all I care.
> >>The folks
> >>who live near these facilities are glad to have them.
> >
> >
> > That's a joke, right?
>
> Nope. Good for the local economy. Good for the local environment.
Good for local environment?!? That also is a joke, right?
> Most U.S plants are located near large population centers.
Really? I mean, what "happed" first: nuclear power plants or those
population centres?
> >>They provide
> >>thousands of jobs to the local community with little to no impact on
> >
> > the
> >
> >>environment.
> >
> >
> > Erm... no. That doesn't "compute". The impact is tremendous. Maybe
not
> > right now, but surely when the time comes to disassemble the plant,
> > having to store the waste "fuel" someplace safe and those same
people,
> > facing the termination of their jobs, start screaming NIMBY.
>
> Bzzzzzt. Wrong Luke. The amount of power yielded from a single
pellet
> of uranium dioxide is equivalent to 1800 lbs of coal, or 200 gallons
of
> oil. Disassembling of plants is happening right now. The only hurdle
> is where to put the spent fuel and the disassembled plants.
That's right! NIMBY, remember? Unsolvable problem in the US, or so I
hear.
> Many viable
> options exist, most of which are being complained about by ignorant
> environmentalists.
Oh, well. It's a problem, this kind of ignorance. If those
environmentalists wanted to prove they're right and let you destroy the
environment, you'd destroy "theirs" right along with "yours". Not a good
option.
> >>>Nor the garbage dump.
> >>
> >>And just look at the public outrage that arises when a new one is
> >
> > proposed.
> >
> > Right on. But still, a new one is... what's the word... opened?
Well,
> > you know what I mean. New garbage dumps are being established
regularly.
> > It's not like no new one was established in the past 30 years. So...
I
> > think that people's NIMBYs were... overruled.
>
> Did you have a point? A nuclear power plant costs an order of
magnitude
> more than a garbage dump to build. It should come as no surprise to
> find thta investors are less likely to back a plant than a dump when
From what I hear, it's not a problem of "backing". That is, not a
problem of money. Local authorities are screaming NIMBY all the same.
soft-eng
> We would subsidize these nuclear power plants at the national level. I
> believe something like 50 billion a year would be plenty to get them
> built. They last for a very long time and this infrastructure would
> jump-start the American economy big time.
That would be very good long-term thing, but is there
a lobby for this at all? The public, as Mark Thornton
points out, doesn't trust the word "nuclear" too much.
The Bush administration, while happy to destroy the
environment on general principles, is not going to
take on the challenge of doing something that's
all-around beneficial but unpopular, such as nuclear energy.
The budget proposed a little bit of money for hydrogen
energy initiatives but I don't think there was any mention of
nuclear initiatives.
And of course, I don't know if the waste disposal is
entirely a non-issue -- would a major geological event
potentially be a threat in terms of the disposed waste?
LiamSlider
<snip>
Ok I'll conceed that the US *may* have a limited nuclear first strike
policy in extreme situations. Now...show me where we'd use chemical or
biological weapons in a first strike scenario. That's the assumption
remember, that Iraqi's have chem suits and atropine because we'd use
chemical weapons against them. Because they surely have no intentions of
using them against us....
BTW, looks like we've found a rather large cache of Sarin nerve gas in Iraq.
> [snip]
>
>>>Hm, but if someone who is fighting for survival is *logically* (as
>>>approved by Liam) using "whatever they can to win", would this not
>>>imply that so would we, if our troops were fighting for survival (as
>>>per my hypothesis)?
>>
>>There is a difference between a regime (especially one known for use of
>>WMD in both warfare and against civilians) fighting for it's very
>>survival, and some soldiers, fighting in combat, who may or may not
>>survive. To the USA this isn't a win or die scenario, to the Iraqi
>>government it is.
>
>
> And as I have already documented in the same thread (to Otis), in 1945
> the U.S. government opted for the use of nuclear weapons in precisely
> that kind of situation. It seems, if you read the Butler letter, that
> they at least considered it in Gulf I, but concluded it was useless
> and would alienate our allies. Interestingly, none of the reasons
> Butler gave involved Iraqi civilians.
The situation is hardly the same as in 1945.
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>>Sounds like those proofs that God exists or doesn't exist. If you
>>>think that the above has anything to do with logic, check this out:
>>>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1568811357/
>>
>>Oh so logic *must* be specifically mathematical and have nothing to do
>>with reason and thinking. Just pure math.
>
>
> It has everything to do with reason and thinking, but nothing with
> judgment and subjectivity---that, my friend, is the point of
> mathematical logic. Like so many before you, you try to disguise your
> subjectivity in the terms of "logic" to make it sound like something
> it is not---objective truth. Unfortunately for you, you are not even
> very good at it.
>
> The only thing that interests me here is whether you are using this
> nonsense about objectivity as an inexpertly applied rhetorical device,
> or whether you are actually believing it yourself---iow, I am trying
> to find out whether you are plain dishonest or a conceited redneck.
You've never heard of the concept of inductive logic appairently. That's
exactly what I'm using. I suppose I *could* spell it out for you in
symbolic logic for you, but I was trying to keep my argument as simple
as possible. Furthermore I am neither dishonest nor a conceited redneck.
>
>
>>You are such an idiot.
>
>
> I will conclude, then, that you have nothing more of value to add to
> this debate.
Of course I do, but I'm tiring of you though.
>
>
>>>>Does this spell things out logically enough for you? Assuming that the
>>>>initial statements are true (and there is no reason to believe they are
>>>>not) the logical conclusion is obvious.
>>>
>>>
>>>Odd that so many people fail to see this. Why do you think this is?
>>>Are you smarter than they are?
>>
>>According to the tests, yes, yes I am.
>
>
> That's a good one Liam, I like it.
True too.
>
>
>>>>Depends on who's killed. With Baath party supporters you are probably
>>>>correct. However Coalition forces are clearly willing to give their
>>>>lives in nessessary to liberate Iraq. Therefore their deaths, so long as
>>>>they contribute to said liberation, will be within their interests.
>>>
>>>
>>>I guess this means you have never actually stood on a field of battle,
>>>right?
>>
>>If you mean as a soldier in a war,
>
>
> Or as a correspondent? An innocent bystander? Anything that gave you
> first-hand access to people in combat, and their views about their
> imminent death.
Well there were the times my adoptive ex-father attempted to kill me.
And there's most of the rest of my childhood, where I had to put thought
aside and survive on pure instinct. And there were the times I've had to
deal with "fatal attraction" type stalkers. Close enough for you?
>
>
>>you would be correct. Have you?
>
>
> Yes, I have.
What war? What branch of the service? What position did you fill?
>
> [snip things we did for Berlin]
>
>>>>>>We are going to do the same things for Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's defer this point until we have more information about what
>>>>>happens after the war.
>>>>
>>>>We've already stated that our plan is essentially the same.
>>>
>>>
>>>But not everybody believes what "we" say about "our" plans. Nor should
>>>they.
>>
>>Why shouldn't they?
>
>
> Because "we" might be lying.
And the evidence that we are is....
Actually I say the ultimate solution to the terrorist problem is to pull
out of everywhere and just let the rest of the world deal with it's own
problems. But when we do that we get bitched about too, and also last
time we left the world to sort out it's own problems WWI and WW2 happened.
War comes about because of....
1) revolution
2) Rogue states violating their agreements
I don't see how having some international organisation will do anything
to prevent either.
Jim Sculley
<snip>
>
> And he says "evidence".
> Well, I don't know how I could prove they're unsafe.
Yet you claim to *know* that they are unsafe?
> "They" _tell_ us
> that thay're safe. Until the first accident, that is. Was Three miles
> not "safe" (like in: did you build an unsafe plant on purpose)?
TMI was/is safe. Perhaps you should read more about what actually
happened there.
> Or Tchernobil?
Former Eastern Block countries such as Russia and East Germany have a
*long* history of ignoring the safety and well-being of their own
citizens, let along their world neighbors.
> There are beaches in UK with sand so radioactive that it
> represents a serious health hazard just walking there. And there hasn't
> been any disasters there (like aforementioned ones in US and Ukraine)! I
> can't imagine what would happen if those disasters occured!
They won't/can't occur in the U.S. If the Russians are still operating
reactors with flawed designs, I would suggest that you take it up with
them.
>
> Having highly radioactive substances in a container separated from the
> envoronment where people live, just by one metre thick wall, can't be
> safe.
I'm sure you can provide some engineering calculations to back that up.
I spent two hours about 10 feet from a pipe containing the same water
that flows around the fuel rods in the reactor core. I picked up 1 mrem
of radiation. I received significantly more on the flight to and from
the plant.
> You can call it that, you can set up paperwork that says so, but
> that doesn't alter the facts.
You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the ass.
<snip>
>
>
> Allowed? That's _paperwork_, Jim. I bet paperwork existed in Three miles
Certainly. Once again, what is it that you *think* happened at TMI.
Tell me, and I'll explain why your belief is incorrect. Furthermore,
what evidence do you have that regulations reagrding exposure to
radiation are malformed?
> and Tchernobil.
Doubtful. Regulations and accountability meant nothing to the Soviets.
> You can't tell a powerplant that it's allowed to produce
> "just so much" radioactivity and / or nuclear waste.
Sure you can. The process is well understood.
> In other words: computers make mistakes.
And these mistakes affect the laws of physics?
> And, most importantly, _people_ make them, too.
Indeed. The key is to minimize the impact of those mistakes. TMI
mistake, zero impact. Chernobyl mistake, massive impact. Number of
Chernobyl-like plants in the U.S.? Zero.
<snip>
>
>
> Good for local environment?!? That also is a joke, right?
What environmental harm do you think a LWR presents?
>
>
>>Most U.S plants are located near large population centers.
>
>
> Really? I mean, what "happed" first: nuclear power plants or those
> population centres?
The cities came first.
<snip>
>
>
> That's right! NIMBY, remember? Unsolvable problem in the US, or so I
> hear.
No, not unsolvable at all.
>
>
>>Many viable
>>options exist, most of which are being complained about by ignorant
>>environmentalists.
>
>
> Oh, well. It's a problem, this kind of ignorance. If those
> environmentalists wanted to prove they're right and let you destroy the
> environment, you'd destroy "theirs" right along with "yours". Not a good
> option.
One has to ignore facts, engineering, and science to believe the
environmentalists.
<snip>
>
>
> From what I hear, it's not a problem of "backing". That is, not a
> problem of money.
Somewhow I doubt you've talked to anyone with the slightest bit of
relevant information on the topic.
> Local authorities are screaming NIMBY all the same.
Nonsense. Just as many conventional power plant projects have been
cancelled as nuclear power plants over the several decades. Economic
conditions were responsible more than anythign else.
Jim S.
Luke Tulkas
> War comes about because of....
>
> 1) revolution
Just out of curiosity: is that bad by definition?
> 2) Rogue states violating their agreements
Do I have to tell you about the agreements again, Liam? Or do you
remember the last time I told you that it's not only the "rogue" states
who have problems honouring them?
LiamSlider
> "LiamSlider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in message
> news:b6s5jl$8dabg$1...@ID-169482.news.dfncis.de...
>
>>War comes about because of....
>>
>>1) revolution
>
>
> Just out of curiosity: is that bad by definition?
No.
>
>
>>2) Rogue states violating their agreements
>
>
> Do I have to tell you about the agreements again, Liam? Or do you
> remember the last time I told you that it's not only the "rogue" states
> who have problems honouring them?
And again, failing to paying dues is not equilivant to violating a cease
fire agreement.
Oh yeah, I keep forgetting, you're the scumbag that thinks Saddam =
Mohammed....never mind. If my kilfilter was actually working you'd be
plonked.