BIG STEVE'S STARGATE REVIEW: "Sight Unseen" **SPOILERS**
flame_thrower
"Steve Christianson" <steve.chr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3E28D4...@worldnet.att.net...
: X-No-Archive: yes
:
: ***SPOILERS for "Sight Unseen"***
:
: I
: m
: y
: o
: u
: r
: b
: o
: y
: y
: o
: u
: r
: 2
: 1
: s
: t
: c
: e
: n
: t
: u
: r
: y
: t
: o
: y
: BIG STEVE HAS LANDED
:
: Comments from a casual Stargater's perspective, on the most recent eps
: shown on the Sci-Fi Channel in the United States.
:
: Good points:
: (1) JANET! SHE'S BACK! Examine me. PLEASE. I need to be thoroughly
: examined by a hot female doctor. Most important are my groin region. I
: really, really, need a meticulous crotch examination by Doctor Frazier.
: Does that make me a bad person?
:
Notice how messy her hair was? One cut to her looked like a double. Her and
Sam's makeup looked pretty futzed.
: Bad points:
: (1) OK, I got a bad feeling about this ep the minute I realized it was
: going to be Jonas-centered.
Daniel is gone.
: (2) I also got a bad feeling when I saw the flying bugs.
Insanity plots can be cool.
gizmo-goddard
Just a disclaimer about the following. This will be just an initial post. I
really want to rewatch this one again before I can give it a fair assessment.
> Good points:
> (1) JANET! SHE'S BACK! Examine me. PLEASE. I need to be thoroughly
> examined by a hot female doctor. Most important are my groin region. I
> really, really, need a meticulous crotch examination by Doctor Frazier.
> Does that make me a bad person?
Incredibly lecherous and terribly pathetic. A "meticulous crotch examination" -
PLEASE! But I do agree that having Frasier in an episode is a good thing. But
she looked tired, almost bored.
> Bad points:
> (1) OK, I got a bad feeling about this ep the minute I realized it was
> going to be Jonas-centered.
I'm not so sure that it was Jonas-centered as it was an episode where they
shoe-horned Sam and Jonas into working together.
> (2) I also got a bad feeling when I saw the flying bugs.
Yeah, I'n with you on that one.
> (3) I got a bad feeling when George Bush was elected.
Personally, I didn't at the time. Boy have things changed.
> (4) OK so #3 was unnecessary and tacky.
Just your opinion. What it has to do with the current episode - oh wait a
minute, they totally underplayed the whole quarantee situation given the virtual
police state that the US has become lately. Just my opinion.
> (5) Shut up and stop hassling me about #3 and #4
Er... never mind.
> (6) I have a recommendation about where Jonas could put some of those
> crystals.
Yeah, did anybody else just get a really bad visual in their head?
> Steve's Babe Report:
> Janet, would you marry me? Or at least sex me up for a night? I'm an
> open minded man. Commitment doesn't really have to be an option. Just
> pay for your fair share of the Motel 6 min-bar account, OK?
See above. A gentleman would at least cover the
friggin' bar tab :-) And I've been in that Motel 6 thank you very much. The last
time I looked their wasn't even a mini-bar in the damn room.
> Nits/Obscuranta/Rants/Drivel:
> (1) Jack goes fishing again, LOL. I wonder if Jack ever fished with
> dynamite like I did as a kid? Well, not a kid, but my drunk buddies and
> I in my teenage years used to toss quarter sticks of dynamite in the
> water when we were out boozing in Burke Lake (suburban DC). We geniuses
> figured that would bring the big ones to the surface, brilliant huh.
> Dynamite and alcohol, what an inspired combination.
No doubt inspired by "Crocodile Dundee II". Once again, Jack places his into
Carter's hands and she's nice enough not to take it away. This whole "Jack asks
Carter to go fishing" deal is getting really tired.
> (2) Sam is into yellow (lemon?) jello now?
Wasn't that some kind of pudding, like banana or something?
> (3) Sam has a lesbian haircut.
Exactly what qualifies it as a "lesbian" haircut? No, I'm serious. What about a
hairstyle could possibly scream "I'm as lesbian"?
> Overall grade:
> C. Boring except for Janet.
Overall, at the moment, I'm inclined to agree with you but I'm going to rewatch
it later and maybe I'll be in a more forgiving mood. It should be noted that the
story for this one came from Ron Wilkerson. The story did have a very
distinctive feel of "we're just making this up as we go".
__!_!__
Gizmo
MadiHolmes
>
>Good points:
>(1) JANET! SHE'S BACK! Examine me. PLEASE. I need to be
Snipped the rest, so you're the guy who posted the nympho story. Looks like you
need to be snipped a bit
>
>(1) OK, I got a bad feeling about this ep the minute I realized it was
>going to be Jonas-centered.
He almost, ALMOST got pissed off. Just a little more, and his existence might
have been justified.
>
>(2) I also got a bad feeling when I saw the flying bugs.
I got a bad feeling when I saw CJ break character, and smiled more times than
he did in the past 5 seasons. That Jaffa sarcasm works better when he plays it
straight. I did like it when he got all smug though.
>
>(3) I got a bad feeling when George Bush was elected.
the first time around, eh? W. scares me even more.
>
>
>Nits/Obscuranta/Rants/Drivel:
>(1) Jack goes fishing again, LOL. I wonder if Jack ever fished with
>dynamite like I did as a kid?
I didn't see one single fishing rod in his truck or otherwise. I did cheer when
they destroyed the sign.Wanton destruction is always funny.
>
>Dynamite and alcohol, what an inspired combination.
Darwin award alert
>(2) Sam is into yellow (lemon?) jello now?
Did you see what she was eating? A banana and pudding. Come on, eat SOMETHING
substantial.
>
>(3) Sam has a lesbian haircut.
Wha?
>
>C. Boring except for Janet.
>
eh, B-. SO close to an actual "Stargate" episode. I do like how this was one
time they couldn't just contain it to Cheyenne Mountain, and had to deal with
the general populace. BTW, is there an actual Piedmont airport in C. Springs?
Madi"For a guy who hasn't seen much scifi, Jack sure does drop a lot of scifi
popculture references"Holmes
Mark Jones
Christianson <steve.chr...@worldnet.att.net>' confessed:
>Comments from a casual Stargater's perspective, on the most recent eps
>shown on the Sci-Fi Channel in the United States.
>
>Good points:
>(1) JANET! SHE'S BACK! Examine me. PLEASE. I need to be thoroughly
>examined by a hot female doctor. Most important are my groin region. I
>really, really, need a meticulous crotch examination by Doctor Frazier.
>Does that make me a bad person?
You're sick. And when I say you're sick, I mean, of course, that you
need 24 hour care from Dr. Frazier.
>Bad points:
>(1) OK, I got a bad feeling about this ep the minute I realized it was
>going to be Jonas-centered.
Eh. I was annoyed that _nobody_ (including a certain female Major in
the Air Force who is quite attractive in her own right) even mentioned
the time SHE was seeing aliens that nobody else was aware of. You
know, the guy built a stargate in her basement out of parts he ordered
over the internet. The SGC certainly took _her_ reports seriously.
You'd think that people who've had as many wierd experiences as
they've had would cut Jonas a little more slack. Yeah, when they
couldn't find any evidence of the bugs putting the base back on normal
status was a reasonable action--but that doesn't mean they should just
dismiss the situation as delusions.
>(2) I also got a bad feeling when I saw the flying bugs.
I just didn't care.
>(3) I got a bad feeling when George Bush was elected.
I experienced a great deal of schedenfreude (or however it's spelled)
watching people shriek that the end of civilization was near,
considering that most of the people I knew who were shrieking the
loudest had been utterly unsympathetic to equally appalled cries of
dismay during the previous eight years....
>Steve's Babe Report:
>Janet, would you marry me? Or at least sex me up for a night? I'm an
>open minded man. Commitment doesn't really have to be an option. Just
>pay for your fair share of the Motel 6 min-bar account, OK?
I thought Janet's hair did not flatter her at all, and as someone else
noted--she looked tired.
>Overall grade:
>C. Boring except for Janet.
I'll second that. But at least they didn't have any damn spaceships
in this episode.
--
"It will let you do things nobody else can do, see things nobody else can see."
"_Real_ things?"
--Egg Shen and Jack Burton
Laurelin Vernet
"gizmo-goddard" <gizmo-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Qh5W9.950$zF6....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
I wouldn't have thought it was one anyone would want to see again.
> > Good points:
> > (1) JANET! SHE'S BACK! Examine me. PLEASE. I need to be thoroughly
> > examined by a hot female doctor. Most important are my groin region. I
> > really, really, need a meticulous crotch examination by Doctor Frazier.
> > Does that make me a bad person?
>
> Incredibly lecherous and terribly pathetic. A "meticulous crotch
examination" -
> PLEASE! But I do agree that having Frasier in an episode is a good thing.
But
> she looked tired, almost bored.
Steve just wanted to show off that he could spell meticulous. ;p
> > Bad points:
> > (1) OK, I got a bad feeling about this ep the minute I realized it was
> > going to be Jonas-centered.
>
> I'm not so sure that it was Jonas-centered as it was an episode where they
> shoe-horned Sam and Jonas into working together.
Yes, poor Jonas.
> > (2) I also got a bad feeling when I saw the flying bugs.
>
> Yeah, I'n with you on that one.
>
> > (3) I got a bad feeling when George Bush was elected.
>
> Personally, I didn't at the time. Boy have things changed.
At least he's the US's leader and not Australia's. Oh wait, we have Little
Johnny. Wanna swap?
> > (4) OK so #3 was unnecessary and tacky.
>
> Just your opinion. What it has to do with the current episode - oh wait a
> minute, they totally underplayed the whole quarantee situation given the
virtual
> police state that the US has become lately. Just my opinion.
Actually, just on that OT topic (you know off topic topic just sounds like
I'm stuttering), I'm surprised at the amount of coverage anti-war protests
are getting in the media. As I recall, there was very little coverage during
the Gulf War. Is there a lot of coverage of them in the States?
> > (6) I have a recommendation about where Jonas could put some of those
> > crystals.
>
> Yeah, did anybody else just get a really bad visual in their head?
Yes, and I hope that visual is giving Steve a worse headache than it's
giving me.
> > Steve's Babe Report:
> > Janet, would you marry me? Or at least sex me up for a night? I'm an
> > open minded man. Commitment doesn't really have to be an option. Just
> > pay for your fair share of the Motel 6 min-bar account, OK?
>
> See above. A gentleman would at least cover the
> friggin' bar tab :-) And I've been in that Motel 6 thank you very much.
The last
> time I looked their wasn't even a mini-bar in the damn room.
You two are really cheap. Janet at least deserves a minibar.
> > Nits/Obscuranta/Rants/Drivel:
> > (1) Jack goes fishing again, LOL. I wonder if Jack ever fished with
> > dynamite like I did as a kid? Well, not a kid, but my drunk buddies and
> > I in my teenage years used to toss quarter sticks of dynamite in the
> > water when we were out boozing in Burke Lake (suburban DC). We geniuses
> > figured that would bring the big ones to the surface, brilliant huh.
> > Dynamite and alcohol, what an inspired combination.
>
> No doubt inspired by "Crocodile Dundee II". Once again, Jack places his
into
> Carter's hands and she's nice enough not to take it away. This whole "Jack
asks
> Carter to go fishing" deal is getting really tired.
At least she recognises that he only asks her because she's going to say no.
She may ship but Jack does not.
> > (2) Sam is into yellow (lemon?) jello now?
>
> Wasn't that some kind of pudding, like banana or something?
Jelly.
> > (3) Sam has a lesbian haircut.
>
> Exactly what qualifies it as a "lesbian" haircut? No, I'm serious. What
about a
> hairstyle could possibly scream "I'm as lesbian"?
Oh, 'lesbian haircut' is such a boy term.
> > Overall grade:
> > C. Boring except for Janet.
>
> Overall, at the moment, I'm inclined to agree with you but I'm going to
rewatch
> it later and maybe I'll be in a more forgiving mood. It should be noted
that the
> story for this one came from Ron Wilkerson. The story did have a very
> distinctive feel of "we're just making this up as we go".
You won't be in a more forgiving mood. It was leftover bits from a dozen
episodes shoved into one with the extras names changed.
Laurelin
x
ZTurtle23
(2) I also got a bad feeling when I saw the flying bugs.
<<
I'm mad that we didn't get a "Big Honkin Bugs" line from Jack.
>(2) Sam is into yellow (lemon?) jello now?
I think too much working with Jonas is slowly turning her toward that vanilla
side.
J
NoRemorse
"The Saint of all Killers" <X...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns930715C66...@207.217.77.24...
> Steve Christianson wrote:
<snip>
> > Nits/Obscuranta/Rants/Drivel:
> > (1) Jack goes fishing again, LOL. I wonder if Jack ever fished with
> > dynamite like I did as a kid?
>
I don't know. After seeing "Paradise Lost," I don't think Jack likes the
idea.
--
[This message has been transmitted on 100% recycled electrons.]
Louis M. Brown
>Good points:
>(1) JANET! SHE'S BACK! Examine me. PLEASE. I need to be thoroughly
>examined by a hot female doctor. Most important are my groin region. I
>really, really, need a meticulous crotch examination by Doctor Frazier.
>Does that make me a bad person?
Er, WAYYYYYY TMI,
>
>Bad points:
>(1) OK, I got a bad feeling about this ep the minute I realized it was
>going to be Jonas-centered.
ARG!!! Why doesn't someone axe-murder this moron yet?
>(2) I also got a bad feeling when I saw the flying bugs.
>(3) I got a bad feeling when George Bush was elected.
So did I, so did I....
>(4) OK so #3 was unnecessary and tacky.
Yes, but true.
>(5) Shut up and stop hassling me about #3 and #4
<LG> NO! Stay on topic! Look at what you're doing. Think about your
actions! </LG>
>(6) I have a recommendation about where Jonas could put some of those
>crystals.
>
>Steve's Babe Report:
>Janet, would you marry me? Or at least sex me up for a night? I'm an
>open minded man. Commitment doesn't really have to be an option. Just
>pay for your fair share of the Motel 6 min-bar account, OK?
>
>Nits/Obscuranta/Rants/Drivel:
>(1) Jack goes fishing again, LOL. I wonder if Jack ever fished with
>dynamite like I did as a kid? Well, not a kid, but my drunk buddies and
>I in my teenage years used to toss quarter sticks of dynamite in the
>water when we were out boozing in Burke Lake (suburban DC). We geniuses
>figured that would bring the big ones to the surface, brilliant huh.
>Dynamite and alcohol, what an inspired combination.
>(2) Sam is into yellow (lemon?) jello now?
>(3) Sam has a lesbian haircut.
>
Louis M. Brown
>Bad points:
>(1) OK, I got a bad feeling about this ep the minute I realized it was
>going to be Jonas-centered.
>(2) I also got a bad feeling when I saw the flying bugs.
>(3) I got a bad feeling when George Bush was elected.
>(4) OK so #3 was unnecessary and tacky.
>(5) Shut up and stop hassling me about #3 and #4
>(6) I have a recommendation about where Jonas could put some of those
>crystals.
>
>Steve's Babe Report:
>Janet, would you marry me? Or at least sex me up for a night? I'm an
>open minded man. Commitment doesn't really have to be an option. Just
>pay for your fair share of the Motel 6 min-bar account, OK?
>
>Nits/Obscuranta/Rants/Drivel:
>(1) Jack goes fishing again, LOL. I wonder if Jack ever fished with
>dynamite like I did as a kid? Well, not a kid, but my drunk buddies and
>I in my teenage years used to toss quarter sticks of dynamite in the
>water when we were out boozing in Burke Lake (suburban DC). We geniuses
>figured that would bring the big ones to the surface, brilliant huh.
>Dynamite and alcohol, what an inspired combination.
ACK, fuck, I fucked up and hit send.
Erm, yes..... But then again, I can't say much... :P
>(2) Sam is into yellow (lemon?) jello now?
>(3) Sam has a lesbian haircut.
>
>Overall grade:
>C. Boring except for Janet.
Hasn't she always? I mean, there's only been a few eps where Sam's
hair looked.....feminine..
-LMB
Laurelin Vernet
> X-No-Archive: yes
It was boring. And trite. And other words that mean the same thing.
> > Steve just wanted to show off that he could spell meticulous. ;p
>
>
> You're just jealous. :-)
At least I'm not lexiphanic; I'm just a lexiphane. :))
> > At least he's the US's leader and not Australia's. Oh wait, we have
Little
> > Johnny. Wanna swap?
>
>
> Would you elaborate? Who is Little Johnny? Sorry, but we get very little
> OZ news here.
Little Johnny is what we call John Howard, Australia's Prime Minister. He's
a unprepossessing toadie (to the US). Bill Bryson, the travel writer, has
got him down pat:
'. John Howard is by far the dullest man in Australia. Imagine a very
committed funeral home director - someone whose burning ambition from the
age of eleven was to be a funeral home director, whose proudest achievement
in adulthood was to be elected president of the Queanbeyan and District
Funeral Home Directors Association - then halve his personality and halve it
again, and you have pretty well got John Howard.'
[from his book Down Under]
> > Actually, just on that OT topic (you know off topic topic just sounds
like
> > I'm stuttering), I'm surprised at the amount of coverage anti-war
protests
> > are getting in the media. As I recall, there was very little coverage
during
> > the Gulf War. Is there a lot of coverage of them in the States?
>
>
> There is a tiny amount of coverage of the anti-war protests in the U.S..
> To be fair, however, anti-war sentiment is minimal in this country at
> best. Please note that this is NOT the American historical tradition.
> :-) Until World War II, Americans were solidly isolationist.
Ah, I thought we might be getting more of the coverage than is being aired
in the US. We're seeing quite a lot of protests on the news.
> > > Yeah, did anybody else just get a really bad visual in their head?
> >
> > Yes, and I hope that visual is giving Steve a worse headache than it's
> > giving me.
>
>
> Ouch.
Too bad. ;p
> > You two are really cheap. Janet at least deserves a minibar.
>
>
> Hold that thought for our first date. [runs] :-)
Janet might deserve a minibar but I deserve a five star hotel. See to it.
> > > No doubt inspired by "Crocodile Dundee II". Once again, Jack places
his
> > into
> > > Carter's hands and she's nice enough not to take it away. This whole
"Jack
> > asks
> > > Carter to go fishing" deal is getting really tired.
> >
> > At least she recognises that he only asks her because she's going to say
no.
> > She may ship but Jack does not.
>
>
> Good point.
I occasionally make them, sometimes even about Stargate!
> > Jelly.
>
>
> I want her to spread it on my body. Does that make me a pervert? Don't
> answer that. <eg>
I was going to answer that but I won't now...
> > Oh, 'lesbian haircut' is such a boy term.
>
>
> You're just trying to turn me on (and it's working). <eg>
Who me? Would I do a thing like that?
> > You won't be in a more forgiving mood. It was leftover bits from a dozen
> > episodes shoved into one with the extras names changed.
>
>
> Gizmo sounds a bit grumpy these days, don't you think? Well, I'm
> probably guilty of that too. Sigh.
That was me being grumpy, sweetie. :) Though Gizmo sounds a little grumpy,
too.
Laurelin
x
Rosalita
>
> I got a bad feeling when I saw CJ break character, and
> smiled more times than he did in the past 5 seasons.
Yes, thank you, what is with the smiling? Not only is he
smiling, which is OOC, he's smiling for no damned reason. He
looks like a psycho.
>
>> (3) I got a bad feeling when George Bush was elected.
>
>
> the first time around, eh? W. scares me even more.
Yeah, who'd have thunk that Junior would turn out to be
scarier than Daddy?
--
Rosalita
It ain't no sin to be glad you're alive!
Ranger Bob
I think it was the worst the doc has looked in any episode.
hopefully, she will get ehr shower fixed (and maybe even have more to
do) in some future ep.
>
>> Bad points:
>> (1) OK, I got a bad feeling about this ep the minute I realized it was
>> going to be Jonas-centered.
>
>I'm not so sure that it was Jonas-centered as it was an episode where they
>shoe-horned Sam and Jonas into working together.
I didn't feel it was Jonas centered at all. In fact, it didn't
feel centered at all. :-)
>
>> (2) I also got a bad feeling when I saw the flying bugs.
>
>Yeah, I'n with you on that one.
I didn't get a bad feeling until i saw the crawling bugs. The
flying bugs and the one on the guys hood (with all the teeth) didn't
phase me at all, but the creepy crawly things just give me the
willies. It reminds me of those giant centipedes. YUCH!
>> (3) I got a bad feeling when George Bush was elected.
>
>Personally, I didn't at the time. Boy have things changed.
I don't feel like being political today. :-)
>
>> (4) OK so #3 was unnecessary and tacky.
Well THAT'S normal. ;-)
>
>Just your opinion. What it has to do with the current episode - oh wait a
>minute, they totally underplayed the whole quarantee situation given the virtual
>police state that the US has become lately. Just my opinion.
>
>> (5) Shut up and stop hassling me about #3 and #4
>
>Er... never mind.
>
>> (6) I have a recommendation about where Jonas could put some of those
>> crystals.
>
>Yeah, did anybody else just get a really bad visual in their head?
I'm still trying to get over thinking about those crawling
bugs. :-)
>> Steve's Babe Report:
>> Janet, would you marry me? Or at least sex me up for a night? I'm an
>> open minded man. Commitment doesn't really have to be an option. Just
>> pay for your fair share of the Motel 6 min-bar account, OK?
>
>See above. A gentleman would at least cover the
>friggin' bar tab :-) And I've been in that Motel 6 thank you very much. The last
>time I looked their wasn't even a mini-bar in the damn room.
In this ep, she looked like she had spent the night at the
bar.
>
>> Nits/Obscuranta/Rants/Drivel:
>> (1) Jack goes fishing again, LOL. I wonder if Jack ever fished with
>> dynamite like I did as a kid? Well, not a kid, but my drunk buddies and
>> I in my teenage years used to toss quarter sticks of dynamite in the
>> water when we were out boozing in Burke Lake (suburban DC). We geniuses
>> figured that would bring the big ones to the surface, brilliant huh.
>> Dynamite and alcohol, what an inspired combination.
With us it was stumps, but then, we were a farming community.
:-)
>
>No doubt inspired by "Crocodile Dundee II". Once again, Jack places his into
>Carter's hands and she's nice enough not to take it away. This whole "Jack asks
>Carter to go fishing" deal is getting really tired.
His what?
>
>> (2) Sam is into yellow (lemon?) jello now?
>
>Wasn't that some kind of pudding, like banana or something?
Man, i missed the food completely. I think I was probably too
busy yawning. :-)
>
>> (3) Sam has a lesbian haircut.
>
>Exactly what qualifies it as a "lesbian" haircut? No, I'm serious. What about a
>hairstyle could possibly scream "I'm as lesbian"?
I guess one found between the legs of another woman? Man, I
think you guy's attitudes are rubbing off on me. :-)
>
>> Overall grade:
>> C. Boring except for Janet.
>
>Overall, at the moment, I'm inclined to agree with you but I'm going to rewatch
>it later and maybe I'll be in a more forgiving mood. It should be noted that the
>story for this one came from Ron Wilkerson. The story did have a very
>distinctive feel of "we're just making this up as we go".
Boring and pointless. The aliens were no threat, so the only
"danger" was people freaking out.
I kind of liked the gas station attendant. When jack started
shooting, I half expected the guy to tell "Signs, Signs, the guy hates
signs" a la The Jerk.
Overall, it was a C ep, but in the middle of this season, that
isn't so bad. At least we used the Stargate.
Ranger Bob
"If you aren't living on the edge, you're taking up too much space."
"Jaffa, TREE!"
Edie
> Good points:
Well, for me, the scene between Jack and Vernon at the
end. I liked it. I also liked the bugs. What can I say?
I like cool looking harmless bugs. :-)
>
> Bad points:
> (1) OK, I got a bad feeling about this ep the minute I realized it was
> going to be Jonas-centered.
Can't say the same myself.
> (2) I also got a bad feeling when I saw the flying bugs.
See above. :-)
> (3) I got a bad feeling when George Bush was elected.
Heh, not as bad as the feeling I get watching him *as*
President.
> (4) OK so #3 was unnecessary and tacky.
Yeah, probably. (It's a low will power day)
> (5) Shut up and stop hassling me about #3 and #4
*I'm* not hassling you. :-)
> (6) I have a recommendation about where Jonas could put some of those
> crystals.
Uh oh. I'm not going there. :-)
>
> Nits/Obscuranta/Rants/Drivel:
> (1) Jack goes fishing again, LOL.
Well, its a relaxing activity right? No Jonas, no Jonas
seeing supposedly imaginary bugs, that sort of thing.
OTOH, fishing often involves worms. Me, I prefer bugs.
<g>
I wonder if Jack ever fished with
> dynamite like I did as a kid? Well, not a kid, but my drunk buddies and
> I in my teenage years used to toss quarter sticks of dynamite in the
> water when we were out boozing in Burke Lake (suburban DC). We geniuses
> figured that would bring the big ones to the surface, brilliant huh.
> Dynamite and alcohol, what an inspired combination.
Who was it mentioned the Darwin awards? <g>
>
> Overall grade:
> C. Boring except for Janet.
I'll give it a C+.
Edie
gizmo-goddard
news:3e29da7...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> >> Does that make me a bad person?
> >
> >Incredibly lecherous and terribly pathetic. A "meticulous crotch
examination" -
> >PLEASE! But I do agree that having Frasier in an episode is a good thing. But
> >she looked tired, almost bored.
>
> I think it was the worst the doc has looked in any episode.
> hopefully, she will get ehr shower fixed (and maybe even have more to
> do) in some future ep.
Agreed. Just when I thought that they'd gotten past ignoring her.
> >
> >> Bad points:
> >> (1) OK, I got a bad feeling about this ep the minute I realized it was
> >> going to be Jonas-centered.
> >
> >I'm not so sure that it was Jonas-centered as it was an episode where they
> >shoe-horned Sam and Jonas into working together.
>
> I didn't feel it was Jonas centered at all. In fact, it didn't
> feel centered at all. :-)
Yep, that's it exactly. It didn't feel like they were really trying to do
anything here. It's another Jack-lite episode where they tried to turn a good
deal of the story over to Sam and Jonus, but it really didn't work all that
well. I did like a couple of moments that they had. The one scene when the
grandmother mentioned that they were such a nice looking couple and Sam cut
Jonas off by grabbing his hand was priceless.
> >> (2) I also got a bad feeling when I saw the flying bugs.
> >
> >Yeah, I'n with you on that one.
>
> I didn't get a bad feeling until i saw the crawling bugs. The
> flying bugs and the one on the guys hood (with all the teeth) didn't
> phase me at all, but the creepy crawly things just give me the
> willies. It reminds me of those giant centipedes. YUCH!
EEWWW!!!!
TRUE STORY: I was sitting at a table at the dining hall in boy scout camp. One
of the other guys was holding a large oatmeal cookie in his hand when a seven
inch centipede fell onto it from the ceiling. It was one of those really big,
fat red ones with bright yellow legs. Needless to say, everybody else bailed and
he couldn't figure out why everyone was running away...until he turned to take a
bite. <AAAAHHHHH!!!!>
<SNIP>
> I don't feel like being political today. :-)
Good. Neither do I. How about them Rockets?
<SNIPPED>
> I'm still trying to get over thinking about those crawling
> bugs. :-)
Shades of "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom".
> >> Steve's Babe Report:
<SNIPPED>
> In this ep, she looked like she had spent the night at the
> bar.
From what little we saw of her, Teryl probably wishes that she'd stayed at the
pub.
> >> Nits/Obscuranta/Rants/Drivel:
<SNIPPED>
> With us it was stumps, but then, we were a farming community.
> :-)
I was a biochemistry major. How I didn't wind up in EOD, I'll never know.
Suffice it to say that I was very useful when it came time for pranks and
inter-unit rivalries in the Corps.
> >No doubt inspired by "Crocodile Dundee II". Once again, Jack places his into
> >Carter's hands and she's nice enough not to take it away. This whole "Jack
asks
> >Carter to go fishing" deal is getting really tired.
>
> His what?
Sorry - his career. I'm sure that he's comfortable asking her and he's confident
that she's not going to see it as some kind of harassment, but after a certain
number of times, even she's got to tire of it.
> >> (2) Sam is into yellow (lemon?) jello now?
> >
> >Wasn't that some kind of pudding, like banana or something?
>
> Man, i missed the food completely. I think I was probably too
> busy yawning. :-)
Yeah, it was an unremarkable episode.
> >> (3) Sam has a lesbian haircut.
> >
> >Exactly what qualifies it as a "lesbian" haircut? No, I'm serious. What about
a
> >hairstyle could possibly scream "I'm as lesbian"?
>
> I guess one found between the legs of another woman? Man, I
> think you guy's attitudes are rubbing off on me. :-)
Well, if you put it that way ;-) Still, I don't think hair style in and of
itself is a good indication of a woman's sexual preference. And just for the
record about my attitude, er, uh, never mind.
<SNIP>
> Boring and pointless. The aliens were no threat, so the only
> "danger" was people freaking out.
>
> I kind of liked the gas station attendant. When jack started
> shooting, I half expected the guy to tell "Signs, Signs, the guy hates
> signs" a la The Jerk.
>
> Overall, it was a C ep, but in the middle of this season, that
> isn't so bad. At least we used the Stargate.
If only they'd been going off-world at the start rather than returning. I really
miss the early seasons. :-(
__!_!__
Gizmo
Laurelin Vernet
"Steve Christianson" <stevechr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3E2A47...@yahoo.com...
> X-No-Archive: yes
Laurelin wrote:
> > Ah, I thought we might be getting more of the coverage than is being
aired
> > in the US. We're seeing quite a lot of protests on the news.
>
>
> protests in a dozen cities around the country. We had one here in D.C.
> too it seems.
With hundreds of thousands of people, apparently.
> While I have no problems attacking Saddam, he is a scumbag who has been
> trying to get every kind of weapon from nukes to the bizarre "super
> cannon" of the late 1980s, I am not happy about starting another
> conflict when we *still* cant get Osama! Jeez, how tough can it be to
> nab the one 6 1/2 foot tall Arab in the Middle East?
I figured that one was pretty much a lost cause when Rumsfeld (who gets my
vote for 'Horrible Little Man of 2001/02 Award') said that the US had bin
Laden trapped. He was either in a cave in Afganistan, somewhere else in
Afganistan, or in another country. Well, that narrowed it down.
Laurelin
x
Laurelin Vernet
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
>
> Laurelin Vernet wrote:
> >
> > "Steve Christianson" <stevechr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E2A47...@yahoo.com...
anti-war
> > > protests in a dozen cities around the country. We had one here in D.C.
> > > too it seems.
> >
> > With hundreds of thousands of people, apparently.
>
>
> there's another rally later today (Sunday) here in DC. Well, good for
> them. Dissent is a good thing, especially with this Administration. I
> don't agree with them, but still, the right to dissent is important and
> is a healthy counter-balance to the current war fever.
Why don't you agree with them?
*Laurelin opening can of worms*
> > I figured that one was pretty much a lost cause when Rumsfeld (who gets
my
> > vote for 'Horrible Little Man of 2001/02 Award')
>
>
> He looks to me like the kind of guy who turns people in for stealing
> towels from hotel rooms.
ROTFL! A lovely description.
>
> > said that the US had bin
> > Laden trapped. He was either in a cave in Afganistan, somewhere else in
> > Afganistan, or in another country. Well, that narrowed it down.
>
>
> I remember that, what a moron. We pay trillions for this massive
> military establishment and all he can do is arrogantly say "we'll get
> him one day." Um, not good enough.
But that money goes on bombs and sometimes people just aren't in the areas
where the bombs are dropped.
Laurelin
x
Bizarro7
>> (1) Jack goes fishing again, LOL. I wonder if Jack ever fished with
> > dynamite like I did as a kid?
>
> If anybody would be into that, Jack would.
I don't know. After seeing "Paradise Lost," I don't think Jack likes the
idea.<<
Jack might have done it as a kid, but ruining perfectly good fishing holes with
unsportsman-like techniques like that would probably horrify him. Now Mr. "Save
The Rivers" Richard Dean Anderson would probably shoot young Jack O'Niell if he
caught him at it.
Leah
Edie
OT post...
Laurelin Vernet wrote:
>
> "Steve Christianson" <stevechr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3E2A47...@yahoo.com...
> > X-No-Archive: yes
> Laurelin wrote:
> > > Ah, I thought we might be getting more of the coverage than is being
> aired
> > > in the US. We're seeing quite a lot of protests on the news.
> >
> >
> > Actually, it appears I'm wrong. On the TV tonite was news about anti-war
> > protests in a dozen cities around the country. We had one here in D.C.
> > too it seems.
Yes- a big one. I was there. :-) This weekend's
events are getting major publicity- they were the lead
story in the national news shows that I watched
last night and front page news this morning in my
newspapers.
>
> With hundreds of thousands of people, apparently.
It was a big crowd in DC, that's for sure. While coverage
of anti-war protests has been relatively sparse up to now,
these events this weekend are getting major coverage, and
I think that the visibility of anti-war sentiment will
keep growing. Whether it will affect policy remains to be
seen; but from the polls I've seen, the support of the
majority of the American people for war is very soft.
MHO
Edie
gizmo-goddard
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
>
<SNIPPED>
>
> I remember that, what a moron. We pay trillions for this massive
> military establishment and all he can do is arrogantly say "we'll get
> him one day." Um, not good enough.
Catching one man, particularly a massively wealthy guy, especially one with
delusions of godhood and an incredibly overamped sense of paranoia that goes
along with that, is *not* an easy thing. Clinton tried to get him a couple of
years earlier with a cruise missile attack on one of his bases in Afghanistan
but they missed him by about one hour, apparently. In the first gulf war, while
it was never a stated goal of the coalition, the US hit every place that they
could where they thought Saddam might be. They were even targetting Winnebago's
at one point because he was shown in the back of one. Obviously they never got
him, and if we do go ahead with this ill-begotten plan, they're really gonna
have their work cut out for them trying to get him this time around too.
__!_!__
Gizmo
Ranger Bob
Nope. RDA hates guns. He's too civilized to own a fire arm. He would
have to stab or beat the guy to death. :-)
Mark Jones
rang...@att.net (Ranger Bob)' confessed:
>>Jack might have done it as a kid, but ruining perfectly good fishing holes with
>>unsportsman-like techniques like that would probably horrify him. Now Mr. "Save
>>The Rivers" Richard Dean Anderson would probably shoot young Jack O'Niell if he
>>caught him at it.
>
>Nope. RDA hates guns. He's too civilized to own a fire arm. He would
>have to stab or beat the guy to death. :-)
Yeah, well...when I first heard that RDA was cast as O'Neill in the
upcoming Stargate: SG-1 television series, I was...concerned. I was
aware of his feelings on the issue and of the nonsensical non-gun use
in MacGuyver.
I was very pleased to see that his personal views did _not_ bleed over
into the new show. O'Neill carries actual, honest-to-god guns and
actually uses them appropriately. Even now that RDA is one of TPTB on
the series it hasn't happened.
Yay!
Edie
Mark Jones wrote:
>
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 18:38:49 GMT, beaten and sobbing,
> rang...@att.net (Ranger Bob)' confessed:
>
> >>Jack might have done it as a kid, but ruining perfectly good fishing holes with
> >>unsportsman-like techniques like that would probably horrify him. Now Mr. "Save
> >>The Rivers" Richard Dean Anderson would probably shoot young Jack O'Niell if he
> >>caught him at it.
> >
> >Nope. RDA hates guns. He's too civilized to own a fire arm. He would
> >have to stab or beat the guy to death. :-)
>
> Yeah, well...when I first heard that RDA was cast as O'Neill in the
> upcoming Stargate: SG-1 television series, I was...concerned. I was
> aware of his feelings on the issue and of the nonsensical non-gun use
> in MacGuyver.
I'm aware of your feelings on the gun issue, and do *not*
want to start a gun discussion :-) But IMO, MacGyver not
using guns worked based on the premise of the show.
MacGyver was not about realism, :-) but IMO, it would have
been just another show if he had used guns.
>
> I was very pleased to see that his personal views did _not_ bleed over
> into the new show. O'Neill carries actual, honest-to-god guns and
> actually uses them appropriately. Even now that RDA is one of TPTB on
> the series it hasn't happened.
>
> Yay!
I agree that guns are used appropriately in Stargate, too.
Jack not using guns would be *really* silly. <g>
Edie
Laurelin Vernet
See the problem, I think, lies in the way the US tries to catch him, which
is simply bombing everything in sight. As the Canadians and the Red Cross in
Afganistan know that gets people who are simply in the way. I point out this
WWII saying from the Brits, 'When we bomb, the Germans duck. When the
Germans bomb, we duck. When the Americans bomb, everyone ducks.' You'd think
that in 50+ years, the Americans would have learnt that sometimes bombing
isn't going to work.
Laurelin
Laurelin Vernet
"Edie" <ed...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3E2B147E...@comcast.net...
> I'm aware of your feelings on the gun issue, and do *not*
> want to start a gun discussion :-) But IMO, MacGyver not
> using guns worked based on the premise of the show.
> MacGyver was not about realism, :-) but IMO, it would have
> been just another show if he had used guns.
I'm with you there, Edie. MacGyver was about using ingenuity to get out of
sticky situations. It doesn't take much brainpower to shoot something.
*oho, controversial comment!*
> >
> > I was very pleased to see that his personal views did _not_ bleed over
> > into the new show. O'Neill carries actual, honest-to-god guns and
> > actually uses them appropriately. Even now that RDA is one of TPTB on
> > the series it hasn't happened.
> >
> > Yay!
>
> I agree that guns are used appropriately in Stargate, too.
> Jack not using guns would be *really* silly. <g>
And he looks good with one too, whereas MacGyver would have just looked
silly.
Laurelin
x
gizmo-goddard
news:b0fa60$oe6v4$1...@ID-177521.news.dfncis.de...
>
<SNIPPED>
> See the problem, I think, lies in the way the US tries to catch him, which
> is simply bombing everything in sight. As the Canadians and the Red Cross in
> Afganistan know that gets people who are simply in the way. I point out this
> WWII saying from the Brits, 'When we bomb, the Germans duck. When the
> Germans bomb, we duck. When the Americans bomb, everyone ducks.' You'd think
> that in 50+ years, the Americans would have learnt that sometimes bombing
> isn't going to work.
<COMMENTARY>
That's a bit simplistic but not all that wrong. The big problem with the US
approach to apprehending/dealing with specific bad guys is that the US does not
have the human intelligence assets in place that it needs to get to anybody.
Even when they do have reliable intel, they try to use traditional military
means in lieu of more unconventional means. Sometimes it does work, but more
oftten than not, as in the two examples that I mentioned earlier, it's really
hard to target a specific person from 35,000 feet or 1,000 miles away. As our
technology improves, we may be able to at some point in the future, but not
right now. You'd think that we'd learn from things like Panama.
</COMMENTARY>
We now return you to your regular Stargate newgroup :-)
__!_!__
Gizmo
Mark Jones
<ed...@comcast.net>' confessed:
>> Yeah, well...when I first heard that RDA was cast as O'Neill in the
>> upcoming Stargate: SG-1 television series, I was...concerned. I was
>> aware of his feelings on the issue and of the nonsensical non-gun use
>> in MacGuyver.
>
>I'm aware of your feelings on the gun issue, and do *not*
>want to start a gun discussion :-) But IMO, MacGyver not
>using guns worked based on the premise of the show.
>MacGyver was not about realism, :-) but IMO, it would have
>been just another show if he had used guns.
There's "I don't like to use guns" and "I'll disable a guy who _has_ a
gun and throw the gun away rather than use it". The former I don't
have a problem with; the latter is just silly, especially when you're
fighting for your life (or the lives of others), series premise or no
series premise.
Ranger Bob
That's pretty funny since it was the Americans who bombed
during the day (and paid for it in many more casualties) so that the
bombing was more accurate. It was the Germans and the Brits who
blindly bombed the crap out of everything at night.
gizmo-goddard
I think that this was a reference to the use of strategic bombers typically used
over Germany in the second world war in the role of "tactical bombers" which
they did several times after the Normandy invasion. While such missions
generally acccomplished the tasks they were set out to do, there were a lot of
friendly ground forces that took it on the chin whenever the bombs started
falling. Of course, I could be wrong here.
Even in the strategic bombing campaign, what the B-17s and B-24s did over
Germany can hardly be called "precision", at least not by modern standards. At
least the USAAF tried to target militarily significant targets - sorta. And yes,
they paid *dearly* for their efforts. Historians are still debating the true
effectiveness of the whole strategic bombing campaign in Europe on both sides.
Fortunately for the allied bombers, the Me-262 didn't come into the war until it
was too late. Imagine that thing entering wing service in 1943 instead of 1945.
__!_!__
Gizmo
MadiHolmes
>gun and throw the gun away rather than use it". The former I don't
>have a problem with; the latter is just silly, especially when you're
>fighting for your life (or the lives of others), series premise or no
>series premise.
>
That's the whole premise for Batman right there.
The whole point of MacGyver <and why it worked> was because it relied on the ye
olde brains vs brawn fight. In this case, it was Swiss army knife vs. guns and
Communists and evil ecoterrorists <hey, it was the 80s, and Captain Planet
still hadn't made his debut yet and the Berlin Wall hadn't fallen and
Conservation was in its biggest stages>. People wanted to see "good guys vs bad
guys" but were still reeling from the Vietnam War. Enter a guy who didn't use
guns but still kicked major ass. If you wanted that, you'd go watch Stallone or
Schwartzenegger. If you wanted a guy with a a glorified table knife, you
watched MacGyver.
Madi"Me? I watched Murder She Wrote"Holmes
Mark Jones
(MadiHolmes)' confessed:
>>There's "I don't like to use guns" and "I'll disable a guy who _has_ a
>>gun and throw the gun away rather than use it". The former I don't
>>have a problem with; the latter is just silly, especially when you're
>>fighting for your life (or the lives of others), series premise or no
>>series premise.
>
>That's the whole premise for Batman right there.
Batman lives in the same world with the Flash, Superman and Black
Canary. You have to leave real-world rules at the door when you pick
up the comics. Maybe MacGuyver was as implausible as a Batman comic
(I never watched the show personally, it just wasn't my cuppa tea),
but that's not the impression I have.
Laurelin Vernet
> X-No-Archive: yes
> > > Yeah, so I see. Man that really slipped under my radar. Apparently
> > > there's another rally later today (Sunday) here in DC. Well, good for
> > > them. Dissent is a good thing, especially with this Administration. I
> > > don't agree with them, but still, the right to dissent is important
and
> > > is a healthy counter-balance to the current war fever.
> >
> > Why don't you agree with them?
> >
> > *Laurelin opening can of worms*
>
>
>
> "While I have no problems attacking Saddam, he is a scumbag who has been
> trying to get every kind of weapon from nukes to the bizarre "super
> cannon" of the late 1980s, I am not happy about starting another
> conflict when we *still* cant get Osama! Jeez, how tough can it be to
> nab the one 6 1/2 foot tall Arab in the Middle East?"
>
> Saddam. Naturally I'd prefer to see peace, but war is sometimes an
> unfortunate necessary evil. I saw on the news, however, that Rumsfeld
> says he wouldn't oppose the idea of letting Saddam and other senior
> Iraqis just leave the country and retire in exile somewhere. I think
> that would be great, it's how we got rid of Rauol Cedras the dictator of
> Haiti in 1994 without loss of life.
Unlike many others, I don't think this is about oil. If the US wanted oil,
it would just buy it. My problem with getting Saddam (and I have no problem
with him being classified as a scumbag) is that I don't see what the big
deal is. Iraq is not a threat to the US. Saddam is less of a threat now than
he was during the Gulf War and it took the US all of four days to clear out
the Iraqi army from Kuwait, if that. So, I want to know, why the big deal
about him now? North Korea is more of a clear and present danger than is
Iraq. And I also have problems with the hypocrisy inherent in the US having
weapons of mass destruction, the UK having weapons of mass destruction and
horribly unstable countries like Pakistan and India having weapons of mass
destruction, not to mention China and various former Soviet republics. The
US didn't have a problem with Saddam killing his own people and having
weapons of mass destruction when he was a US ally, in the same way that
there weren't problems with bin Laden. The US doesn't have a problem with
the lack of rights that ordinary people in Saudi Arabia have, particularly
women, so the human rights argument doesn't fly. So what is it about? Not
oil. Not human rights. Perhaps it's just the age old having to have an
enemy.
Laurelin
x
Laurelin Vernet
Really? Tell that to the Canadians and the Red Cross in Afganistan.
Laurelin
Eva
> On 19 Jan 2003 15:27:35 GMT, biza...@aol.com (Bizarro7) wrote:
>
> >The Bummer writes:
> >
> >>> (1) Jack goes fishing again, LOL. I wonder if Jack ever fished with
> >> > dynamite like I did as a kid?
> >>
> >> If anybody would be into that, Jack would.
> >
> >I don't know. After seeing "Paradise Lost," I don't think Jack likes the
> >idea.<<
> >
> >Jack might have done it as a kid, but ruining perfectly good fishing
holes with
> >unsportsman-like techniques like that would probably horrify him. Now Mr.
"Save
> >The Rivers" Richard Dean Anderson would probably shoot young Jack O'Niell
if he
> >caught him at it.
Mr "Save The Rivers"?? FCOL, Leah, do you have something against rivers?
> Nope. RDA hates guns. He's too civilized to own a fire arm. He would
> have to stab or beat the guy to death. :-)
Nah, he would ask MacGyver to do it for him. :-)
Eva
--
Save Farscape
www.savefarscape.com
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_46150.html
Ranger Bob
<LVe...@vorlonempire.com> wrote:
>
>"Ranger Bob" <rang...@att.net> wrote in message
>news:3e2b7c83...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:49:44 +1100, "Laurelin Vernet"
>> <LVe...@vorlonempire.com> wrote:
>> >See the problem, I think, lies in the way the US tries to catch him,
>which
>> >is simply bombing everything in sight. As the Canadians and the Red Cross
>in
>> >Afganistan know that gets people who are simply in the way. I point out
>this
>> >WWII saying from the Brits, 'When we bomb, the Germans duck. When the
>> >Germans bomb, we duck. When the Americans bomb, everyone ducks.'
>>
>> That's pretty funny since it was the Americans who bombed
>> during the day (and paid for it in many more casualties) so that the
>> bombing was more accurate. It was the Germans and the Brits who
>> blindly bombed the crap out of everything at night.
>
>Really? Tell that to the Canadians and the Red Cross in Afganistan.
Is that where they hung out during WWII? Your quote had
nothing to do with Afghanistan, and I am pretty sure that the US Army
Air Force was never active in Afghanistan during WWII.
As far as Afghanistan today goes, USAF has taken great care in
avoiding unnecessary casualties. The Red Cross (which I happen to be a
member of) has not taken any position against the way the US has
conducted the war in Afghanistan.
There WAS an unfortunate accident with the Canadians and it
was truly terrible for those involved, but that was one incident out
of thousands of sorties. As the Canadian soldiers (if not the
political hacks back home) will tell you, there were many incidents
where my aircraft was the difference between life and death for them.
Many more Canadian (not to mention Brit, Aussie and American) soldiers
are alive today because of the US Air Force and US Navy than those who
were accidently killed or wounded.
To say that the US military is just bombing willy nilly all
over the countryside shows a real ignorance of the facts. The men on
the ground take great care in guiding us to the right targets, and at
great danger to themselves. I know of at least two incidents (because
I was there) where the guys on the ground risked their own lives by
waving off air support because of nearby civilians. We are talking two
or three guys facing 100 Taliban soildiers. No one would have blamed
or charged them for calling in the support, but they took the terrible
risk of running instead.
The vast majority of Blue on Blue incidents (as well as
civilian casualties) caused by air power are inflicted by the
Americans, but that is only a part of the numbers game. We are the
only ones able to provide the ammount of air support necessary to keep
the operators alive, and that means we are more likely to be the ones
involved when an incident occurs.
We are also generally given the most difficult air missions (a
big exception to this was during the Gulf War when Brit Tornados got
really torn up because some idiot decided to put them on missions
better suited for an A-10). This isn't because the Brits, Aussies,
Canadians, et al can't handle the tough missions. The ones I met and
worked with were really good. It's simply because there is more
political fallout when they do something bad or their guys get killed.
The Americans will get beat up in the press anyways, but a bad
incident for the other countries could mean them dropping out of the
fight.
Ranger Bob
Could be. I just get annoyed when people make insulting
statements about things they know nothing about. Equating anything in
WWII to Afghanistan in 2002 is simply ridiculous.
>Even in the strategic bombing campaign, what the B-17s and B-24s did over
>Germany can hardly be called "precision", at least not by modern standards.
Yep, but then we could now say the same thing about the Gulf
War too, couldn't we. :-) Man, things change so fast nowadays. I was
frankly amazed at how accurate some of the stuff in Afghanistan was.
Even the advances in the AC-130 were amazing to me. I was stunned at
how much better we were than in the late 1980s when I had last been on
a gunship.
>At
>least the USAAF tried to target militarily significant targets - sorta. And yes,
>they paid *dearly* for their efforts. Historians are still debating the true
>effectiveness of the whole strategic bombing campaign in Europe on both sides.
>Fortunately for the allied bombers, the Me-262 didn't come into the war until it
>was too late. Imagine that thing entering wing service in 1943 instead of 1945.
We'd be speaking German right now. :-)
gizmo-goddard
> >I think that this was a reference to the use of strategic bombers typically
used
> >over Germany in the second world war in the role of "tactical bombers" which
> >they did several times after the Normandy invasion. While such missions
> >generally acccomplished the tasks they were set out to do, there were a lot
of
> >friendly ground forces that took it on the chin whenever the bombs started
> >falling. Of course, I could be wrong here.
> Could be. I just get annoyed when people make insulting
> statements about things they know nothing about. Equating anything in
> WWII to Afghanistan in 2002 is simply ridiculous.
True enough. While I wasn't around for the latest round of hostilities,
everything that I've seen indicates the even the BUFF were using JDAMs for the
most part. Very little "iron sight" bombing, if any.
> >Even in the strategic bombing campaign, what the B-17s and B-24s did over
> >Germany can hardly be called "precision", at least not by modern standards.
> Yep, but then we could now say the same thing about the Gulf
> War too, couldn't we. :-)
Well the B-52 raids on Iraqi forces in Kuwait back then were not precision
strikes, nor were they intended to be.
> Man, things change so fast nowadays. I was
> frankly amazed at how accurate some of the stuff in Afghanistan was.
> Even the advances in the AC-130 were amazing to me. I was stunned at
> how much better we were than in the late 1980s when I had last been on
> a gunship.
> >At
> >least the USAAF tried to target militarily significant targets - sorta. And
yes,
> >they paid *dearly* for their efforts. Historians are still debating the true
> >effectiveness of the whole strategic bombing campaign in Europe on both
sides.
> >Fortunately for the allied bombers, the Me-262 didn't come into the war until
it
> >was too late. Imagine that thing entering wing service in 1943 instead of
1945.
> We'd be speaking German right now. :-)
I'm not convinced of that. Had the Germans gotten the right technology in the
field early enough, they could have fought everyone to a stalemate, maybe. I
doubt that it would have mattered; Hitler had already gone over the edge by
1943. I'm pretty sure that Germany's fate was pretty well sealed when the battle
of Stalingrad was over.
__!_!__
Gizmo
gizmo-goddard
>
<SNIPPED>
> Unlike many others, I don't think this is about oil. If the US wanted oil,
> it would just buy it. My problem with getting Saddam (and I have no problem
> with him being classified as a scumbag) is that I don't see what the big
> deal is. Iraq is not a threat to the US. Saddam is less of a threat now than
> he was during the Gulf War and it took the US all of four days to clear out
> the Iraqi army from Kuwait, if that. So, I want to know, why the big deal
> about him now?
You and the rest of the world would really like an adequate answer to that
question and so far, the Bush administration has yet to provide something that
amounts to an adequate response, at least in a lot of people's eyes. I'm not
saying that they don't have a good answer to the question; they're just not
giving it right now.
> North Korea is more of a clear and present danger than is
> Iraq.
That's a matter that's up to interpretation and it all depends on the intent of
the North Korean regime. Most of the folks who are talking to the media seem to
be convinced that this is just a latest in a long series of "temper tantrums"
that the North Koreans has done over the years to try to gain attention, like
any brat child. Of course, they could all be wrong and the North could be
building nuclear weapons as we speak...
>And I also have problems with the hypocrisy inherent in the US having
> weapons of mass destruction, the UK having weapons of mass destruction and
> horribly unstable countries like Pakistan and India having weapons of mass
> destruction, not to mention China and various former Soviet republics.
While it does seem to be somthing of a double standard, the whole nuclear
nonproliferation treaty thing came about as a sorta buffer to contain the spread
to nuclear arms and at the same time to preserve the balance of power between
the major superpowers. While the US and the Former Soviet Union had substantial
nuclear arsensals and a well developed capability to deploy them globally, most
of the other countries in the so-called nuclear club do not have that
capability. Even the PRC is just now getting to a point where they could
reliably fire ICBMs. Most (if not all) of the former Soviet republics have
completely disarmed.
> The
> US didn't have a problem with Saddam killing his own people and having
> weapons of mass destruction when he was a US ally, in the same way that
> there weren't problems with bin Laden.
Those are two very separate people following two very different agendas. US
policy regarding Iraq over the years has been questionable to say the least. As
far as bin laden and his cronies go, they weren't a concern for the US as long
as they were focusing their anger on the Soviets in Afghanistan. My how things
change.
> The US doesn't have a problem with
> the lack of rights that ordinary people in Saudi Arabia have, particularly
> women, so the human rights argument doesn't fly. So what is it about? Not
> oil. Not human rights. Perhaps it's just the age old having to have an
> enemy.
As I stated earlier, you and a whole lot of other people would like an adequate
answer to that one. Maybe we'll get one. To borrow from an old saying, "The
duration's going to be a long longer than the war."
__!_!__
Gizmo
Mark Jones
Vernet" <LVe...@vorlonempire.com>' confessed:
>Unlike many others, I don't think this is about oil. If the US wanted oil,
>it would just buy it. My problem with getting Saddam (and I have no problem
>with him being classified as a scumbag) is that I don't see what the big
>deal is. Iraq is not a threat to the US. Saddam is less of a threat now than
>he was during the Gulf War and it took the US all of four days to clear out
>the Iraqi army from Kuwait, if that. So, I want to know, why the big deal
>about him now?
There are a lot of reasons. For one, much of the arab world
(including, most importantly, the terrorists) have come to view the US
as a paper tiger who will bluster and make a few pointless attacks on
mostly empty facilities, but not present a credible threat. Taking
out Hussein will change that (that's also why war is inevitable at
this point--if we back down _now_ after spending so much time and
effort preparing for war, it will teach everyone that they can push us
this far _again_ before finally conceding just enough to prevent a
war). That's not a lesson we want them to learn.
Hussein has been in violation of UN resolutions for a decade; only the
threat of war by the "Cowboy" US has forced him to accept new
inspections at all, and still hasn't forced him to truly cooperate.
War is a last resort, but in this case we've _reached_ the last
resort.
Once we've toppled/killed Hussein, we'll have a staging ground for
applying more pressure to other nations that support terrorists and/or
hardcore islamic fanatics (such as our "ally" Saudi Arabia). We'll
also have demonstrated that we can and will take serious action.
If you're really interested in the reasons why the attack on Iraq is a
good idea, I'd recommend reading Stephen Den Beste's weblog (USS
Clueless). He's written at length about the reasons why he supports
this action, and he's very convincing.
>North Korea is more of a clear and present danger than is
>Iraq. And I also have problems with the hypocrisy inherent in the US having
>weapons of mass destruction, the UK having weapons of mass destruction and
>horribly unstable countries like Pakistan and India having weapons of mass
>destruction, not to mention China and various former Soviet republics. The
>US didn't have a problem with Saddam killing his own people and having
>weapons of mass destruction when he was a US ally, in the same way that
>there weren't problems with bin Laden. The US doesn't have a problem with
>the lack of rights that ordinary people in Saudi Arabia have, particularly
>women, so the human rights argument doesn't fly. So what is it about? Not
>oil. Not human rights. Perhaps it's just the age old having to have an
>enemy.
>
>Laurelin
>x
>
--
Dalroy
>
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 16:11:26 -0500, beaten and sobbing, Edie
> <ed...@comcast.net>' confessed:
>
> >> Yeah, well...when I first heard that RDA was cast as O'Neill in the
> >> upcoming Stargate: SG-1 television series, I was...concerned. I was
> >> aware of his feelings on the issue and of the nonsensical non-gun use
> >> in MacGuyver.
> >
> >I'm aware of your feelings on the gun issue, and do *not*
> >want to start a gun discussion :-) But IMO, MacGyver not
> >using guns worked based on the premise of the show.
> >MacGyver was not about realism, :-) but IMO, it would have
> >been just another show if he had used guns.
>
> There's "I don't like to use guns" and "I'll disable a guy who _has_ a
> gun and throw the gun away rather than use it". The former I don't
> have a problem with; the latter is just silly, especially when you're
> fighting for your life (or the lives of others), series premise or no
> series premise.
Sounds like you just shouldn't watch the show. Others like it and
do. Takes all kinds.
Dalroy
Dalroy
Eva wrote:
>
> "Ranger Bob" <rang...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:3e2af178....@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> > On 19 Jan 2003 15:27:35 GMT, biza...@aol.com (Bizarro7) wrote:
> >
> > >The Bummer writes:
> > >
> > >>> (1) Jack goes fishing again, LOL. I wonder if Jack ever fished with
> > >> > dynamite like I did as a kid?
> > >>
> > >> If anybody would be into that, Jack would.
> > >
> > >I don't know. After seeing "Paradise Lost," I don't think Jack likes the
> > >idea.<<
> > >
> > >Jack might have done it as a kid, but ruining perfectly good fishing
> holes with
> > >unsportsman-like techniques like that would probably horrify him. Now Mr.
> "Save
> > >The Rivers" Richard Dean Anderson would probably shoot young Jack O'Niell
> if he
> > >caught him at it.
>
> Mr "Save The Rivers"?? FCOL, Leah, do you have something against rivers?
>
> > Nope. RDA hates guns. He's too civilized to own a fire arm. He would
> > have to stab or beat the guy to death. :-)
>
> Nah, he would ask MacGyver to do it for him. :-)
Hopefully the answer is that he's to civilized to want to stab
or beat anyone to death. :)
Edie
Laurelin Vernet wrote:
>
> "Edie" <ed...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3E2B147E...@comcast.net...
> > I'm aware of your feelings on the gun issue, and do *not*
> > want to start a gun discussion :-) But IMO, MacGyver not
> > using guns worked based on the premise of the show.
> > MacGyver was not about realism, :-) but IMO, it would have
> > been just another show if he had used guns.
>
> I'm with you there, Edie. MacGyver was about using ingenuity to get out of
> sticky situations. It doesn't take much brainpower to shoot something.
>
> *oho, controversial comment!*
<g> It was the ingenuity of MacGyver's solutions as you
say- the "make something out of paper clips and gum
wrappers, etc." approach that was fun for me. And I really
do enjoy seeing intelligence put to solving problems, not
just brute force. (Not that MacGyver couldn't handle
himself in a fight, however. :-))
> > >
> > > I was very pleased to see that his personal views did _not_ bleed over
> > > into the new show. O'Neill carries actual, honest-to-god guns and
> > > actually uses them appropriately. Even now that RDA is one of TPTB on
> > > the series it hasn't happened.
> > >
> > > Yay!
> >
> > I agree that guns are used appropriately in Stargate, too.
> > Jack not using guns would be *really* silly. <g>
>
> And he looks good with one too, whereas MacGyver would have just looked
> silly.
:-) True.
Edie
>
> Laurelin
> x
Edie
Steve Christianson wrote:
>
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> Edie wrote:
> >
> > Hi~
> >
> > OT post...
> >
> > Laurelin Vernet wrote:
> > >
> > > "Steve Christianson" <stevechr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3E2A47...@yahoo.com...
> > > > X-No-Archive: yes
> > > Laurelin wrote:
> > > > > Ah, I thought we might be getting more of the coverage than is being
> > > aired
> > > > > in the US. We're seeing quite a lot of protests on the news.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Actually, it appears I'm wrong. On the TV tonite was news about anti-war
> > > > protests in a dozen cities around the country. We had one here in D.C.
> > > > too it seems.
> >
> > Yes- a big one. I was there. :-)
>
> Probably freezing your tuckus off, it was a :::cold::: weekend.
<g> I dressed *very* warmly, so it wasn't so bad. I guess
being in a large group made a difference. :-)
>
> > This weekend's
> > events are getting major publicity- they were the lead
> > story in the national news shows that I watched
> > last night and front page news this morning in my
> > newspapers.
>
> <nods> Big pic on the cover of my Sunday Washington Post too.
>
> > > With hundreds of thousands of people, apparently.
> >
> > It was a big crowd in DC, that's for sure. While coverage
> > of anti-war protests has been relatively sparse up to now,
> > these events this weekend are getting major coverage, and
> > I think that the visibility of anti-war sentiment will
> > keep growing. Whether it will affect policy remains to be
> > seen; but from the polls I've seen, the support of the
> > majority of the American people for war is very soft.
>
> Hard to say. There's still a lot of post-9/11 fury I think.
I agree. And a feeling of vulnerability- the belief that
our national security really is at stake. But I also
think that there is less support for an action against
Iraq than there is for continuing the "war on terrorism."
In general, I think that support for action against Iraq
is based on the general consensus that Saddam is a scum bag
and that it would be a good idea to disarm him, rather
than the belief that his ouster is essential to maintaining
our national security or that he had anything to do with
Sept. 11. Which is why, IMO, the support for unilateral
action against Iraq is soft in the US.
But I agree that strong anti-war sentiment may not be
widespread enough to stop the Bush administration from
attacking Iraq. I have been encouraged, however,
by the reports that other solutions are being sought to
prevent war. And I think that reluctance on the part of
our allies around the world has an effect as well.
Edie
Edie
gizmo-goddard wrote:
>
> "Laurelin Vernet" <LVe...@vorlonempire.com> wrote in message
> news:b0gfkt$p0edu$1...@ID-177521.news.dfncis.de...
> >
>
> <SNIPPED>
>
> > Unlike many others, I don't think this is about oil. If the US wanted oil,
> > it would just buy it. My problem with getting Saddam (and I have no problem
> > with him being classified as a scumbag) is that I don't see what the big
> > deal is. Iraq is not a threat to the US. Saddam is less of a threat now than
> > he was during the Gulf War and it took the US all of four days to clear out
> > the Iraqi army from Kuwait, if that. So, I want to know, why the big deal
> > about him now?
>
> You and the rest of the world would really like an adequate answer to that
> question and so far, the Bush administration has yet to provide something that
> amounts to an adequate response, at least in a lot of people's eyes.
Count me in that group.
I'm not
> saying that they don't have a good answer to the question; they're just not
> giving it right now.
IMO, it had better have a darned good answer before an
attack begins. Right now, to me it looks as if the Bush
administration thinks that September 11th gives him the
mandate to eliminate potential, not just actual,
threats to our security. Bush as much said so in his
Cincinnati speech. IMO, he's wrong, and that attitude
is both unworthy of a supposedly peace loving nation,
and ultimately threatening to our security, along with
that of other countries.
If this is not why the US is preparing to attack Iraq,
then it had better articulate the real reason soon.
Right now, it seems to me that without an adequate response
to the question of "Why Iraq now," the US is letting
people in the US and around the world answer that question
for themselves with the effect of creating even more fear
and distrust of US' motives and intentions than before.
And that doesn't strengthen anyone's security,
particularly ours.
snipping the rest, which I agree with.
IMO.
Edie
> Gizmo
Mark Jones
<dal...@comcast.net>' confessed:
>Mark Jones wrote:
>> There's "I don't like to use guns" and "I'll disable a guy who _has_ a
>> gun and throw the gun away rather than use it". The former I don't
>> have a problem with; the latter is just silly, especially when you're
>> fighting for your life (or the lives of others), series premise or no
>> series premise.
>
>Sounds like you just shouldn't watch the show. Others like it and
>do. Takes all kinds.
And as I mentioned in a later message, I didn't watch the show. Not
because he didn't use guns (though I think that was silly) but because
the show just wasn't to my taste.
We were discussing RDA's alleged distaste for guns. I don't know
whether his personal views influenced the direction of MacGuyver or
not; I'm just glad that they don't seem to have had any influence on
Stargate, though I feared that they might. That fear turned out to be
unfounded, though--O'Neill (and everyone else) use guns when and where
and how they should.
Bizarro7
Er...no? It was a nickname to remind the reader of his passion and his activism
in the saving of rivers.
Leah (charter member of the Coustau Society)
Laurelin Vernet
"Mark Jones" <sin...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:r0co2vksfmqeum7so...@4ax.com...
> There are a lot of reasons. For one, much of the arab world
> (including, most importantly, the terrorists) have come to view the US
> as a paper tiger who will bluster and make a few pointless attacks on
> mostly empty facilities, but not present a credible threat. Taking
> out Hussein will change that (that's also why war is inevitable at
> this point--if we back down _now_ after spending so much time and
> effort preparing for war, it will teach everyone that they can push us
> this far _again_ before finally conceding just enough to prevent a
> war). That's not a lesson we want them to learn.
Attacking a country to prove that you're big and tough sounds like something
a teenage boy would do to show that he's big and tough to his mates. It's
very juvenile and if this is the case, it makes the US look more idiotic
than it does already.
> Hussein has been in violation of UN resolutions for a decade; only the
> threat of war by the "Cowboy" US has forced him to accept new
> inspections at all, and still hasn't forced him to truly cooperate.
> War is a last resort, but in this case we've _reached_ the last
> resort.
Which doesn't answer my question about why now. What's all so fired up
important about it being now? And please explain why now is the last resort.
Until the Axis of Somewhat Evil speech no one had thought of Saddam for
three years at least. Again, it just sounds like the US has cocked up
getting bin Laden and need some sort of visible enemy to show the world it's
doing something.
> Once we've toppled/killed Hussein, we'll have a staging ground for
> applying more pressure to other nations that support terrorists and/or
> hardcore islamic fanatics (such as our "ally" Saudi Arabia). We'll
> also have demonstrated that we can and will take serious action.
I hesitate to tell you this while you're caught up in this land of the
brave, home of the free flag waving thing you have going here, but the US
does not have to topple or kill anyone to apply pressure to other countries.
You don't need a staging ground. All you need is financial and diplomatic
pressure.
> If you're really interested in the reasons why the attack on Iraq is a
> good idea, I'd recommend reading Stephen Den Beste's weblog (USS
> Clueless). He's written at length about the reasons why he supports
> this action, and he's very convincing.
Do you have the website address?
Laurelin
Laurelin Vernet
> Hi~
>
> gizmo-goddard wrote:
> I'm not
> > saying that they don't have a good answer to the question; they're just
not
> > giving it right now.
>
> IMO, it had better have a darned good answer before an
> attack begins. Right now, to me it looks as if the Bush
> administration thinks that September 11th gives him the
> mandate to eliminate potential, not just actual,
> threats to our security. Bush as much said so in his
> Cincinnati speech. IMO, he's wrong, and that attitude
> is both unworthy of a supposedly peace loving nation,
> and ultimately threatening to our security, along with
> that of other countries.
The Australian Prime Minister tried the eliminate potential threat thing
here and promptly got squished by all the Asian leaders and pretty much
everyone in this country. What a dick the man is.
> If this is not why the US is preparing to attack Iraq,
> then it had better articulate the real reason soon.
> Right now, it seems to me that without an adequate response
> to the question of "Why Iraq now," the US is letting
> people in the US and around the world answer that question
> for themselves with the effect of creating even more fear
> and distrust of US' motives and intentions than before.
> And that doesn't strengthen anyone's security,
> particularly ours.
Hmm, considering that around the world there's only a small percentage *for*
a war, the fear and distrust created is being directed towards the US. Al
Gore said that the US was squandering any good will created after 11
September and he's right.
Laurelin
x
Laurelin Vernet
> >> <LVe...@vorlonempire.com> wrote:
> >> >See the problem, I think, lies in the way the US tries to catch him,
> >which
> >> >is simply bombing everything in sight. As the Canadians and the Red
Cross
> >in
> >> >Afganistan know that gets people who are simply in the way. I point
out
> >this
> >> >WWII saying from the Brits, 'When we bomb, the Germans duck. When the
> >> >Germans bomb, we duck. When the Americans bomb, everyone ducks.'
> >>
> >> That's pretty funny since it was the Americans who bombed
> >> during the day (and paid for it in many more casualties) so that the
> >> bombing was more accurate. It was the Germans and the Brits who
> >> blindly bombed the crap out of everything at night.
> >
> >Really? Tell that to the Canadians and the Red Cross in Afganistan.
>
> Is that where they hung out during WWII? Your quote had
> nothing to do with Afghanistan, and I am pretty sure that the US Army
> Air Force was never active in Afghanistan during WWII.
Bob, I think you need to reacquaint yourself with my original message which
was about the US strategy in Afganistan to get bin Laden. I used a WWII
saying to illustrate my point.
> As far as Afghanistan today goes, USAF has taken great care in
> avoiding unnecessary casualties. The Red Cross (which I happen to be a
> member of) has not taken any position against the way the US has
> conducted the war in Afghanistan.
No, they know on which side their bread is buttered.
> There WAS an unfortunate accident with the Canadians and it
> was truly terrible for those involved, but that was one incident out
> of thousands of sorties. As the Canadian soldiers (if not the
> political hacks back home) will tell you, there were many incidents
> where my aircraft was the difference between life and death for them.
> Many more Canadian (not to mention Brit, Aussie and American) soldiers
> are alive today because of the US Air Force and US Navy than those who
> were accidently killed or wounded.
I've read the transcript of the accident inquiry on the Canadian defence
department website. It blamed the pilots. I think this was the inquiry that
decided to courtmartial them. What it didn't mention but did make it into
the paper today was that US pilots are routinely given pep pills to enable
them to fly for long periods of time. Is it really a good idea to have
pilots take these tablets? Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase 'war on
drugs'.
> To say that the US military is just bombing willy nilly all
> over the countryside shows a real ignorance of the facts. The men on
> the ground take great care in guiding us to the right targets, and at
> great danger to themselves. I know of at least two incidents (because
> I was there) where the guys on the ground risked their own lives by
> waving off air support because of nearby civilians. We are talking two
> or three guys facing 100 Taliban soildiers. No one would have blamed
> or charged them for calling in the support, but they took the terrible
> risk of running instead.
One of those 'right targets' in Afganistan was a man's house that had
survived 20 years of war against the Soviets, the civil war since, and the
Taliban. I recall the photo of the man standing in his living room next to
the unexploded bomb. Are you suggesting that these sorts of things don't
happen?
> The vast majority of Blue on Blue incidents (as well as
> civilian casualties) caused by air power are inflicted by the
> Americans, but that is only a part of the numbers game. We are the
> only ones able to provide the ammount of air support necessary to keep
> the operators alive, and that means we are more likely to be the ones
> involved when an incident occurs.
>
> We are also generally given the most difficult air missions (a
> big exception to this was during the Gulf War when Brit Tornados got
> really torn up because some idiot decided to put them on missions
> better suited for an A-10). This isn't because the Brits, Aussies,
> Canadians, et al can't handle the tough missions. The ones I met and
> worked with were really good. It's simply because there is more
> political fallout when they do something bad or their guys get killed.
> The Americans will get beat up in the press anyways, but a bad
> incident for the other countries could mean them dropping out of the
> fight.
Never come across that here. Even when some bad things happened in East
Timor, the press and Australian public were wholeheartedly behind the
troops. When the SAS soldier got killed in Afganistan, the troops received
nothing but praise from the public.
Laurelin
Mark Jones
Vernet" <LVe...@vorlonempire.com>' confessed:
>
>"Mark Jones" <sin...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
>news:r0co2vksfmqeum7so...@4ax.com...
>> There are a lot of reasons. For one, much of the arab world
>> (including, most importantly, the terrorists) have come to view the US
>> as a paper tiger who will bluster and make a few pointless attacks on
>> mostly empty facilities, but not present a credible threat. Taking
>> out Hussein will change that (that's also why war is inevitable at
>> this point--if we back down _now_ after spending so much time and
>> effort preparing for war, it will teach everyone that they can push us
>> this far _again_ before finally conceding just enough to prevent a
>> war). That's not a lesson we want them to learn.
>
>Attacking a country to prove that you're big and tough sounds like something
>a teenage boy would do to show that he's big and tough to his mates. It's
>very juvenile and if this is the case, it makes the US look more idiotic
>than it does already.
Not if being perceived as weak invites attacks, and demonstrating that
you're willing and able to crush your enemies makes them decide _not_
to attack. This isn't a matter of showing off how macho you are--it's
a very pragmatic matter of demonstrating that attacking the US is a
fatally stupid thing to do.
>> Hussein has been in violation of UN resolutions for a decade; only the
>> threat of war by the "Cowboy" US has forced him to accept new
>> inspections at all, and still hasn't forced him to truly cooperate.
>> War is a last resort, but in this case we've _reached_ the last
>> resort.
>
>Which doesn't answer my question about why now. What's all so fired up
>important about it being now?
1. Because the attack on 9/11/01 happened in large part because the
perpetrators believed--as a direct result of US behavior over the last
decade or more, that our response would more of the same: dithering,
wringing our hands, pleading for peace, maybe a few pointless and
ineffective attacks on some backwater. And Bin Laden is (was) far
from the only person to believe that.
2. Hussein is, I freely admit, in part a target of opportunity. He's
there and he's a pain in the ass. But he's also part of the problem
because our ineffective dealing with his repeated, blatant refusal to
abide by the ceasefire terms he signed in 1991 are _part_ of why we're
perceived as a paper tiger. First we crush him in a long-overdue
reminder of who won the first Gulf War, then we turn our attention to
other troublesome nations...and we do so from Iraq, where we already
have a major force ready for action.
3. Why right now? Because Hussein has been getting "one more chance"
for over a decade. The EU and UN _still_ want to give him One More
Chance again and again. We have to demonstrate that he's _had_ his
last chance to avoid war.
>I hesitate to tell you this while you're caught up in this land of the
>brave, home of the free flag waving thing you have going here, but the US
>does not have to topple or kill anyone to apply pressure to other countries.
>You don't need a staging ground. All you need is financial and diplomatic
>pressure.
SOMETIMES all you need is financial and diplomatic pressure.
Sometimes you need actual military force. And, ultimately, there is
no shining line between diplomatic and military pressure--it's a
continuum. Nothing short of actual military attack in 1991 was
sufficient to deter Hussein, and nothing short of it has been
successful in the last 10 years in making him live up to the terms of
the ceasefire. Some people simply can't be dealt with by any means
but physical force.
>> If you're really interested in the reasons why the attack on Iraq is a
>> good idea, I'd recommend reading Stephen Den Beste's weblog (USS
>> Clueless). He's written at length about the reasons why he supports
>> this action, and he's very convincing.
>
>Do you have the website address?
Bizarro7
>>Which doesn't answer my question about why now. What's all so fired up
important about it being now? And please explain why now is the last resort.
Until the Axis of Somewhat Evil speech no one had thought of Saddam for
three years at least. Again, it just sounds like the US has cocked up
getting bin Laden and need some sort of visible enemy to show the world it's
doing something.<<
Bingo.
It's all very person to the Bushes, too. George Jr is determined to kill
Saddam, because he plotted to kill Daddy, a few years ago. My attitude is, if
you're going to wage a family feud, send your family. Sober up those two
daughters and send them through Black Ops training or something, for Christ's
sake. Don't spend billions of dollars and risk everyone elses' kid for personal
vengeance....oh, and incidentally, to improve the Bush family wealth through
Standard Oil.
Leah
Ranger Bob
And I was showing you how your WWII quote was inaccurate and
irrelevant to the matter at hand. Strategic bombing of cities has
nothing to do with tactical bombing and air support. Whatever, it's
not worth arguing about...
>
>> As far as Afghanistan today goes, USAF has taken great care in
>> avoiding unnecessary casualties. The Red Cross (which I happen to be a
>> member of) has not taken any position against the way the US has
>> conducted the war in Afghanistan.
>
>No, they know on which side their bread is buttered.
Care to explain that? The International Red Cross receives no
money from the US government. They are neutral in almost everything.
During the Gulf War the Red Cross came out against the allies
because we had not adequately prepared for the prisoners we took, or
rather, the large number of them. At one point, because of the Red
Cross (and rightfully so), my bird had it's war making cargo taken off
and blankets loaded on so that the US could stay in compliance with
the Geneva conventions.
If the US was not making every effort to limit civilian
casualties in afghanistan, the International Red Cross would be all
over us. That IS one of their main purposes for being in the first
place.
>> There WAS an unfortunate accident with the Canadians and it
>> was truly terrible for those involved, but that was one incident out
>> of thousands of sorties. As the Canadian soldiers (if not the
>> political hacks back home) will tell you, there were many incidents
>> where my aircraft was the difference between life and death for them.
>> Many more Canadian (not to mention Brit, Aussie and American) soldiers
>> are alive today because of the US Air Force and US Navy than those who
>> were accidently killed or wounded.
>
>I've read the transcript of the accident inquiry on the Canadian defence
>department website. It blamed the pilots. I think this was the inquiry that
>decided to courtmartial them. What it didn't mention but did make it into
>the paper today was that US pilots are routinely given pep pills to enable
>them to fly for long periods of time. Is it really a good idea to have
>pilots take these tablets? Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase 'war on
>drugs'.
They are not "routinely" given out, but I am also against that
policy. Despite the fact that they are administered by doctors for
certain missions, I just don't like the idea. No one in my unit was
ever required to take them, and we were working insane hours for a
while there.
However, as you noted, those pilots are being court martialed.
If what they did was policy or routine, they wouldn't be facing jail
time and a dishonorable discharge. From everything I gathered at the
time, there was no question that they would face charges. THAT is how
seriously USAF and the Navy are taking accuracy and the Rules of
Engagement.
I wasn't in their unit, so I cannot comment on whether they
were using the "Go Pills" or not. If they were, then that will
certainly make the court martial more interesting.
>> To say that the US military is just bombing willy nilly all
>> over the countryside shows a real ignorance of the facts. The men on
>> the ground take great care in guiding us to the right targets, and at
>> great danger to themselves. I know of at least two incidents (because
>> I was there) where the guys on the ground risked their own lives by
>> waving off air support because of nearby civilians. We are talking two
>> or three guys facing 100 Taliban soildiers. No one would have blamed
>> or charged them for calling in the support, but they took the terrible
>> risk of running instead.
>
>One of those 'right targets' in Afganistan was a man's house that had
>survived 20 years of war against the Soviets, the civil war since, and the
>Taliban. I recall the photo of the man standing in his living room next to
>the unexploded bomb. Are you suggesting that these sorts of things don't
>happen?
Of course they happen. Police officers occasionally shoot
innocent civilians. Ambulances occasionally get in car accidents and
kill innocent bystanders. Construction workers occasionally drop beams
on people walking by. That's life. That doesn't mean that the police,
EMS and contruction workers are being slipshod or cavalier about those
incidents. You do what you can to limit them, but the reality is that
it is never a good thing to be in the vicinity of a war, no matter who
you are.
We (meaning the forces of both our countries) are fighting
people who do not wear uniforms, who hide in innocent people's homes,
and think nothing of endangering the civilians around them if it will
further their cause. To believe that we can fight them and not have
civilian casualites is just unrealistic. All we can do is limit it as
much as we can and try to atone for the accidents when they do happen.
>> The vast majority of Blue on Blue incidents (as well as
>> civilian casualties) caused by air power are inflicted by the
>> Americans, but that is only a part of the numbers game. We are the
>> only ones able to provide the ammount of air support necessary to keep
>> the operators alive, and that means we are more likely to be the ones
>> involved when an incident occurs.
>>
>> We are also generally given the most difficult air missions (a
>> big exception to this was during the Gulf War when Brit Tornados got
>> really torn up because some idiot decided to put them on missions
>> better suited for an A-10). This isn't because the Brits, Aussies,
>> Canadians, et al can't handle the tough missions. The ones I met and
>> worked with were really good. It's simply because there is more
>> political fallout when they do something bad or their guys get killed.
>> The Americans will get beat up in the press anyways, but a bad
>> incident for the other countries could mean them dropping out of the
>> fight.
>
>Never come across that here. Even when some bad things happened in East
>Timor, the press and Australian public were wholeheartedly behind the
>troops. When the SAS soldier got killed in Afganistan, the troops received
>nothing but praise from the public.
That's not what I mean. It isn't the average Aussie's support
for their troops that we worry about. It is the Australian (or Brit,
French, Italian, Canadian or whatever) government that may lose their
water, so to speak.
Because the forces of most other countries are pretty small
(but mostly very high quality), if they started reporting high
casualty rates, the desire to pull them out would be much higher than
here in the US. Losing troops is never a good thing, but in this case,
it comes down to a numbers game.
Let's say a particular country sends in 1000 troops while
another sends in 100. If each of them lost 20 men, the first country
has a casualty rate of 2%, while the second country has a casualty
rate of 20%. While the first country might be able to politically
sustain that kind of loss rate, the second would have a hard time
justifying killing 1 out of five of their soldiers for very long. The
second country would also start running out of troops more quickly.
As you can see, it has nothing to do with the quality of
troops, support from home, or weak kneed politicians. It is about the
reality of the size of forces available.
Ranger Bob
<LVe...@vorlonempire.com> wrote:
>
>Attacking a country to prove that you're big and tough sounds like something
>a teenage boy would do to show that he's big and tough to his mates. It's
>very juvenile and if this is the case, it makes the US look more idiotic
>than it does already.
Snippage...
I just wanted to say that I agree with your whole post. That
said, there is no way for the US to back down now without dire
consequences for the next ten years. We either follow through with
what Dubya said we would do ("Regime Change"), or we face even more
intollerable actions by other intollerant goverments.
If I have learned anything from my time in the Middle East,
it's that the average person doesn't care who does it, but they want a
change. They want change so bad, they will turn to anyone who offers
it. THAT is why there is so much support for murderous groups like
Hamas, Al Queda, et al...THEY are advocating change.
While the typical isolationist American in me doesn't want to
get involved, the fact is, we ARE involved, and the only way to get
out of it is to play through.
The best I can see coming out of this is if we can get Iraq
over quickly, but I have serious doubts that this is going to go well.
Don't get me wrong, I think we will sweep the Iraqi army up pretty
quickly. The real question is what we do about the City of Bagdad. Do
we go in with infantry and slug it out amongst a captive civilian
populace (causing large numbers of allied and civilian casualties), or
do we lay seige to the city and let it fall under it's own weight?
Since the world doesn't seem to very concerned about starving
Iraqi civilians, the seige idea has a real chance at happening. There
is no question that 2003 is going to be an ugly year for the average
Iraqi. That's assuming we can't pull off another Haiti, but it doesn't
look like Bush is considering that.
Edie
Laurelin Vernet wrote:
>
> "Edie" <ed...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3E2C5EE8...@comcast.net...
>
> > If this is not why the US is preparing to attack Iraq,
> > then it had better articulate the real reason soon.
> > Right now, it seems to me that without an adequate response
> > to the question of "Why Iraq now," the US is letting
> > people in the US and around the world answer that question
> > for themselves with the effect of creating even more fear
> > and distrust of US' motives and intentions than before.
> > And that doesn't strengthen anyone's security,
> > particularly ours.
>
> Hmm, considering that around the world there's only a small percentage *for*
> a war, the fear and distrust created is being directed towards the US. Al
> Gore said that the US was squandering any good will created after 11
> September and he's right.
I agree. Al Gore is pretty much laughed out of the room
by conservatives over here, and his loss in the election
doesn't help give his words as much weight as they might
have with Democrats, but I also think he's right.
The US had an opportunity to build on that good will
and we blew it. It would really help if our current
administration didn't present itself as being
both clueless and arrogant regarding how its actions are
viewed by the rest of the world, including our allies.
Oh well- JMHO, and not, I think, a majority one here,
although I do think that most Americans care about the
support of our allies.
Edie
>
> Laurelin
> x
Bizarro7
Did anyone else catch the irony of George Bush criticizing Germany for not
supporting his proposal to invade Iraq?
Leah
Ridge
"Bizarro7" <biza...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030122081316...@mb-ce.aol.com...
Can George Bush actually spell 'criticizing '?
hey ... on an unrelated note, when I play Metal of Honour I use the name
'Herr Flick' (from Allo Allo) but I only realized today that it actually
means something ... until now I just thought it was funny in English but
it's actually kinda funny (in context) in German as well. Those witty
British writers, gotta love them.