Iraq's planes etc. [was RE: Life, universe, and fish?]
PK
In article <1991Jan19.1...@en.ecn.purdue.edu> kihl...@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Cory C. Kihlstrom) writes:
>
> Does anyone want to venture a guess on how long this conflict
>will last in the gulf? Hussain is a very stubborn man, in my opinion.
>The Iraqi people also have blind faith in him. This makes the situation
>very dangerous.
> The conflict in my opinion might last as long as two years, adding
>in the previous factors and just taking a hunch. What is everyone else's
>opinion?
>
A practical question to be addressed at this time. I don't know how
long this War could drag on, but it definately won't be over in a week,
as many had expected ("Dude, our air-force will kick their butt out of
Kuwait in less than a week! U-S-A, U-S-A...")
Of what I hear the Iraqis are known to hole in underground bunkers and
stay put for long periods of time. In such circumstances it would be a
while before allied forces manage to dig them out of Kuwait.
Also, has anyone wondered whatever happened to all of Iraq's planes?
Haven't heard much about them on the news-- no one has raised concern
about it. But that is only typical of the TV news, they only seem to
broadcast what the American audience *wants* to hear.
For all you know Iraq does have everything protected underground,
including other 'trump cards' which they plan to use against the allied
troops in land-battle. Which I am sure will be less of a one-sided
battle like the current air attacks, after all they have fought such a
ground war for 8 years and I'm sure they learnt some tricks. Then again,
the Americans learnt what-NOT-to-do in Vietnam, or did they?
Steve Weinrich
>kihl...@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Cory C. Kihlstrom) writes:
>>
>> Does anyone want to venture a guess on how long this conflict
>>will last in the gulf?
>>in the previous factors and just taking a hunch. What is everyone else's
>>opinion?
>A practical question to be addressed at this time. I don't know how
>long this War could drag on, but it definately won't be over in a week,
>as many had expected ("Dude, our air-force will kick their butt out of
>Kuwait in less than a week! U-S-A, U-S-A...")
Sigh...
>Of what I hear the Iraqis are known to hole in underground bunkers and
^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
Hummm, let's think about those words...
>stay put for long periods of time. In such circumstances it would be a
>while before allied forces manage to dig them out of Kuwait.
>Also, has anyone wondered whatever happened to all of Iraq's planes?
Perhaps not much has been going on with them? Perhaps they have
damaged air fields, and perhaps, just perhaps we HAVE been 'kicking
their butt' (to use your words).
>Haven't heard much about them on the news-- no one has raised concern
>about it. But that is only typical of the TV news, they only seem to
>broadcast what the American audience *wants* to hear.
I believe the TV news broadcasts what it feels will get people to
watch their program. Another note, PK, is that everything coming out
of the area MUST go through at least 2 censors.
>For all you know Iraq does have everything protected underground,
>including other 'trump cards' which they plan to use against the allied
>troops in land-battle. Which I am sure will be less of a one-sided
^^^^^^^^^
>battle like the current air attacks, after all they have fought such a
>ground war for 8 years and I'm sure they learnt some tricks. Then again,
>the Americans learnt what-NOT-to-do in Vietnam, or did they?
So, you admit that we have been having success in our air battle.
I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say, except that if you
somehow believe that this is another Vietnam, then you are sadly
mistaken. President Bush is giving FULL power to this action, and
isn't coming out with phrases like:
"Gee, let's bomb them a little, and see what happens".
I believe you were trying to make a point, but somehow didn't. Please
be a little more specific, and perhaps a little less wishy-washy in
your next posting.
--
Steve Weinrich - Purdue University - wein...@ecn.purdue.edu
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
-- Arthur C. Clarke
Frederic Giacometti
BBC broadcast last night: "most Iraki air fields are still operational",
"their air force is almost intact", "Iraki planes avoid combat", "their
major military airfields are of the size of an international airport and very
difficult to destroy".
BBC broadcast: British chief of staff: it's going to be a long and a hell
of a bloody war". "Iraki command structure still intact".
RFI broadcast: "Iraki have aproximately 150 small size military airports
scattered across the country; on each of them, 5 or 6 planes are parked
in bunkers", "the destruction of each of them is almost impossible".
RFI broadcast: "Iraki at least five of six small size nuclear reactors
dissimulated underground". "Iraki defenses are very difficult to spot, they
are five or six stories deep".
RFI broadcast last week: "US have 240,000 tons of bomb in reserve. Given that
they must keep some to support ground attacks, they'll have to attack in
9 days from now, Irakis will get out then".
Who said the Iraki were surprised? The US tactic of massive bombing and
high-tech war has been known for a long time. Don't trust Pentagone
communique's and US media; it's manipulation.
Some other news you won't hear about in US media: major riots in Maroco,
Algeria, and Tunisia. Schools closed, several deads. Algerian parliement
was asked to send troops to support Irak. Important pressures on Turkey
from arab countries so that they shot down their airfields to allied
airplanes.
--
Frederic Giacometti
giac...@ecn.purdue.edu
Steve Weinrich
>wein...@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Steve Weinrich) writes: <ME :) >
>> I believe the TV news broadcasts what it feels will get people to
>>watch their program. Another note, PK, is that everything coming out
>>of the area MUST go through at least 2 censors.
>>
>BBC broadcast last night: "most Iraki air fields are still operational",
>"their air force is almost intact", "Iraki planes avoid combat", "their
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>major military airfields are of the size of an international airport and very
>difficult to destroy".
Then exactly what use are they to the IraQi people?? Gee Bob, better
watch out for those IraQi planes, they can run away REAL fast. That
is, if they ever show up to the fight in the first place. Scares me to
death those non-combatant planes. Wheweee! [wipping brow]
>BBC broadcast: British chief of staff: it's going to be a long and a hell
>of a bloody war". "Iraki command structure still intact".
And what a command structure it is...
"...I think our people are starting to doubt us since many of our
major military communication sights have been bombed into rubble. I
believe our best tactic is to beat the POWs and then force them to
read scripts that make the Americans and other allied nations look
like weenies."
>RFI broadcast: "Iraki have aproximately 150 small size military airports
>scattered across the country; on each of them, 5 or 6 planes are parked
>in bunkers", "the destruction of each of them is almost impossible".
Kinda useless. Unless of course they assemble these small forces
into a fighting machine. But let me beat you to the punch:
"We'd never be able to detect them flying 150 squadrens of 5 or 6
planes each across the country side!"
WRONG! Sigh...
>RFI broadcast: "Iraki at least five of six small size nuclear reactors
>dissimulated underground". "Iraki defenses are very difficult to spot, they
>are five or six stories deep".
And? So what you are attempting to say is that this is something we
didn't ALREADY know going into this war? That somehow we just figured
it out as we went flying by? You are more of a sniveling fool than I
first believed Fred.
>RFI broadcast last week: "US have 240,000 tons of bomb in reserve. Given that
>they must keep some to support ground attacks, they'll have to attack in
>9 days from now, Irakis will get out then".
As soon as you learn how to SPELL Freddy, then come back...
IT'S I-R-A-Q, NOT 'K'!!!!!
>Who said the Iraki were surprised? The US tactic of massive bombing and
>high-tech war has been known for a long time. Don't trust Pentagone
>communique's and US media; it's manipulation.
It's manipulation to those who believe that the media is telling us
something usefull when they say things like: "it appears that..."
Allow me to venture a guess, you have a 3 year subscription to "The
Enquirer" and other fine periodicals that are found at any local
quicki-mart.
>Some other news you won't hear about in US media: major riots in Maroco,
>Algeria, and Tunisia. Schools closed, several deads. Algerian parliement
>was asked to send troops to support Irak. Important pressures on Turkey
>from arab countries so that they shot down their airfields to allied
>airplanes.
So, just how did you get this information? From your ham radio
contacts around the world? Your illegal cable dish? Your PERSONAL
experience in those ravaged locations? Or perhaps, did someone mention
it to you in alt.war.rumors?
> Frederic Giacometti
> giac...@ecn.purdue.edu
Ah, I forgot to mention, I read your article in the Excrement today:
[in the vain of "men on film" from Living Color (the TV show)]
"Hated it!"
-smw
Frederic Giacometti
>>wein...@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Steve Weinrich) writes: <ME :) >
>>>a...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (PK) writes:
>>>>kihl...@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Cory C. Kihlstrom) writes:
>
>>> I believe the TV news broadcasts what it feels will get people to
>>>watch their program. Another note, PK, is that everything coming out
>>>of the area MUST go through at least 2 censors.
>>>
>
>>BBC broadcast last night: "most Iraki air fields are still operational",
>>"their air force is almost intact", "Iraki planes avoid combat", "their
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>major military airfields are of the size of an international airport and very
>>difficult to destroy".
>
> Then exactly what use are they to the IraQi people?? Gee Bob, better
>watch out for those IraQi planes, they can run away REAL fast. That
>is, if they ever show up to the fight in the first place. Scares me to
>death those non-combatant planes. Wheweee! [wipping brow]
You'll cry more in two weeks when body bags will start arriving.
> "...I think our people are starting to doubt us since many of our
>major military communication sights have been bombed into rubble. I
>believe our best tactic is to beat the POWs and then force them to
>read scripts that make the Americans and other allied nations look
>like weenies."
Who's being manipulated with images? The West or Irak ?
>>RFI broadcast: "Iraki have aproximately 150 small size military airports
>>scattered across the country; on each of them, 5 or 6 planes are parked
>>in bunkers", "the destruction of each of them is almost impossible".
>
> Kinda useless. Unless of course they assemble these small forces
>into a fighting machine. But let me beat you to the punch:
>
> "We'd never be able to detect them flying 150 squadrens of 5 or 6
>planes each across the country side!"
>
> WRONG! Sigh...
BBC and RFI broadcast last night: "according to soviet sources, 90% of teh
bombs are missing their targets" (oh, that's why Pentagon is not giving any
information).
>>RFI broadcast: "Iraki at least five of six small size nuclear reactors
>>dissimulated underground". "Iraki defenses are very difficult to spot, they
>>are five or six stories deep".
>
>And? So what you are attempting to say is that this is something we
>didn't ALREADY know going into this war? That somehow we just figured
>it out as we went flying by? You are more of a sniveling fool than I
>first believed Fred.
It's something hidden by the media. What was teh point of bashing over our
heads during the week-end that "two nuclear reactor were definitively damaged",
if not to manipulate the opinion ?
>>RFI broadcast last week: "US have 240,000 tons of bomb in reserve. Given that
>>they must keep some to support ground attacks, they'll have to attack in
>>9 days from now, Irakis will get out then".
>
> As soon as you learn how to SPELL Freddy, then come back...
>
> IT'S I-R-A-Q, NOT 'K'!!!!!
We have the freedom of spelling in this country. I'll spell Irak if I want so.
I spell it I-R-A-K.
>>Who said the Iraki were surprised? The US tactic of massive bombing and
>>high-tech war has been known for a long time. Don't trust Pentagone
>>communique's and US media; it's manipulation.
>
> It's manipulation to those who believe that the media is telling us
>something usefull when they say things like: "it appears that..."
The problem with US media is that Pentagon is their only source. Very
disturbing situation, this monopole over information communique's.
> Allow me to venture a guess, you have a 3 year subscription to "The
>Enquirer" and other fine periodicals that are found at any local
>quicki-mart.
What is the "Enquirer" ? The paper towel you buy each time you go shopping ?
>>Some other news you won't hear about in US media: major riots in Maroco,
>>Algeria, and Tunisia. Schools closed, several deads. Algerian parliement
>>was asked to send troops to support Irak. Important pressures on Turkey
>>from arab countries so that they shot down their airfields to allied
>>airplanes.
>
> So, just how did you get this information? From your ham radio
>contacts around the world? Your illegal cable dish? Your PERSONAL
>experience in those ravaged locations? Or perhaps, did someone mention
>it to you in alt.war.rumors?
What's the hell are you talking about, Steve ? THis is no haming, it's
some of the official and reliable radio stations.
For your information (well, I guess I should not expect you to know that
much):
BBC = British Broadcasting Corporation
RFI = Radio France Internationale
There's no ham radio contacts involved nor dish. Just need a pocket
shortwave radio and a wire hooked on the window for antenna
(and some understanding of British English, of course). I understand
now why they removed SCOLA from the university cable. Some like Steve
were getting worried that these foreing sources of information would
disturb the daily ratio of well-prepared information injected to the
US media networks from the Pentagon and the White House bureau of information.
> Ah, I forgot to mention, I read your article in the Excrement today:
>
> [in the vain of "men on film" from Living Color (the TV show)]
>
> "Hated it!"
Yap, don't go out of your cocoon and do like the ostrich (?); and imagine the
world.
--
Frederic Giacometti
giac...@ecn.purdue.edu
PK
>
>>Of what I hear the Iraqis are known to hole in underground bunkers and
> ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
>
> Hummm, let's think about those words...
>
fought like in the 8 year long war. Thats what I meant by 'Of what
I hear', what I hear from Iranians...
> I believe the TV news broadcasts what it feels will get people to
>watch their program. Another note, PK, is that everything coming out
>of the area MUST go through at least 2 censors.
>
I wasn't refering to the facts the media broadcasts, but the questions
and discussions they have with the experts etc. They chose not to ask
negative(?) questions like "Mr. Expert(!), do you think Iraq is
holding back some of their 'trump cards' for maybe a ground battle?"
Tell me, have you heard much of such questions on TV?
> So, you admit that we have been having success in our air battle.
so it seems from American media...but anyway what I was getting at
was that its been a one-sided battle as in the allied forces are bombing
Iraq but there isn't much retaliation from the mad-man's side.
>
> I believe you were trying to make a point, but somehow didn't. Please
>be a little more specific, and perhaps a little less wishy-washy in
>your next posting.
>
Gee sorry Steve, us international students just don't speak as good
english as you guys and thus can't express ourselves as well :-)
but at least we make an effort to *discuss* important issues such as
these.
Yi-Chieh Chang
> First of all, since you appear to be the Aircraft EXPERT on this
>group, please exPLANE to all of us what the IraQi airforce is waiting
>for? If they cannot handle battle NOW, what makes you think they will
>be able to handle battle in a week? Ground attack or not, their air
>attacks will be minimal at best. They may get a suprise attack off,
>but after that, they are toast. They have PROVEN useless in dogfights
>and general air combat!
>
Iraqis' air forces are surely impotent comparing with allied high tech
fighters and bombers. So, why bother to waste their impotent but precious
airplanes to the allied superior air forces ?
However, even those second class fighters or bombers will do severe damage
to ground troops, such as tanks, armors, and infantries.
If Saddam Hussein wasn't a foolish man in battle combat like some of the
American military experts, I would guess he will reserve his precious air
forces to attack allied ground forces after the ground war started.
Once Iraqis' air forces being all eliminated in attacking the allied ground
forces, Saddam may set fire on most of the Kuwaiti's oil wells, such that the
heavy smoke may turn the desert into a 'forest'. So, allied air forces won't
see anything on the ground in the sky just like what happened in Vietnam
war. Then you would expect the counterattack of Iraqi's tanks, armors, and
infantries under no threat of allied high tech but blind fighters and
bombers.
-Yi-Chieh
Kareth
>Tatata, do not give this tip to Mr Expert Wienrich; he's gonna see that we,
>foreign students, can outsmart him and he will get angry again.
How lovely, a whole post/reply with two lines to insult someone else.
What a nice representative of the intelligence of Purdue students. Or
better yet, LACK OF intelligence. Why don't you two Experts go take
your temper tantrum, childish antics to a more appropriate newsgroup,
like alt.flame? Man, I woulda thought one of you woulda shown some
brains and just bowed out of this and left the other to make a fool of
himself, but I guess it's more important to make a fool of thyself.
My congratulations, you are both doing quite remarkably at that!
-k
Steve Weinrich
>wein...@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Steve Weinrich) writes:
Fred>>> BBC broadcast last night: "most Iraki air fields are still operational",
Fred>>> "their air force is almost intact", "Iraki planes avoid combat", "their
Fred>>> major military airfields are of the size of an international airport and very
Fred>>> difficult to destroy".
Steve>> Then exactly what use are they to the IraQi people?? Gee Bob, better
Steve>> watch out for those IraQi planes, they can run away REAL fast. That
Steve>> is, if they ever show up to the fight in the first place. Scares me to
Steve>> death those non-combatant planes. Wheweee! [wipping brow]
Fred> You'll cry more in two weeks when body bags will start arriving.
First of all, since you appear to be the Aircraft EXPERT on this
group, please exPLANE to all of us what the IraQi airforce is waiting
for? If they cannot handle battle NOW, what makes you think they will
be able to handle battle in a week? Ground attack or not, their air
attacks will be minimal at best. They may get a suprise attack off,
but after that, they are toast. They have PROVEN useless in dogfights
and general air combat!
Fred>>>RFI broadcast: "Iraki have aproximately 150 small size military airports
Fred>>>scattered across the country; on each of them, 5 or 6 planes are parked
Fred>>>in bunkers", "the destruction of each of them is almost impossible".
Steve>> [Sarcasticly] "We'd never be able to detect them flying 150
Steve>> squadrens of 5 or 6 planes each across the country side!"
Fred> BBC and RFI broadcast last night: "according to soviet sources, 90% of teh
Fred> bombs are missing their targets" (oh, that's why Pentagon is not giving any
Fred> information).
Fred, do you HONESTLY believe that 90% of our bombs are missing
their target? I can easily believe 20 or 30%, but 90%?? Have you ever
SEEN the computerized equipment that is in a bomber? Have you noticed
that it doesn't matter if it's PITCH black outside? With night vision
equipment, our pilots see as easily at night as in the day time.
This is a good example of the ABILITY of the US to target and HIT
what they want: Notice the really tall tower in the middle of
Bagdahd? That is their main communications tower. We could have simply
leveled the thing, but instead, we sent 4 missles into the base, the
FRONT door actualy, and destroyed the equipment that runs the tower.
>> As soon as you learn how to SPELL Freddy, then come back...
>>
>> IT'S I-R-A-Q, NOT 'K'!!!!!
>We have the freedom of spelling in this country. I'll spell Irak if I want so.
>I spell it I-R-A-K.
Very well, from this moment on, I CHOOSE to spell Fred: I-D-I-O-T
Idiot>>>Who said the Iraki were surprised? The US tactic of massive bombing and
Idiot>>>high-tech war has been known for a long time. Don't trust Pentagone
Idiot>>>communique's and US media; it's manipulation.
Steve>> It's manipulation to those who believe that the media is telling us
Steve>>something usefull when they say things like: "it appears that..."
Idiot>The problem with US media is that Pentagon is their only source. Very
Idiot>disturbing situation, this monopole over information communique's.
Why are you watching the MEDIA for vital information? Don't you
understand the basic idea behind the media? They are a COMPANY! They
are there to make money. Honesty and factual reporting take a
back-seat to those stories and by-lines which attract new viewers,
thus give the sponsors better reason to PAY them for air time. Money
is the bottom line Idiot.
Steve>> Allow me to venture a guess, you have a 3 year subscription to "The
Steve>>Enquirer" and other fine periodicals that are found at any local
Steve>>quicki-mart.
Idiot>What is the "Enquirer" ? The paper towel you buy each time you go shopping ?
What a daring and witty remark! How DO you do it??
Steve>> So, just how did you get this information? From your ham radio
Steve>>contacts around the world? Your illegal cable dish? Your PERSONAL
Steve>>experience in those ravaged locations? Or perhaps, did someone mention
Steve>>it to you in alt.war.rumors?
Idiot> For your information (well, I guess I should not expect you to know that
Idiot> much):
Idiot> BBC = British Broadcasting Corporation
Idiot RFI = Radio France Internationale
I see. So again, you are listening to CENSORED information. These
people are working with the same information as the US. Except that
they may not be destorting it as much. Why not just watch the AP and
UPI wire Idiot? That is a simple, FACTUAL wire-line that indicates the
events as they unfold, cleared by censors of course, but as close as
you can get without actually being there!
Steve>> Ah, I forgot to mention, I read your article in the Excrement today:
Steve>> [in the vein of "men on film" from Living Color (the TV show)]
Steve>> "Hated it!"
Idiot> Yap, don't go out of your cocoon and do like the ostrich (?); and imagine the
Idiot> world.
Exscuzzzzz me? could you repeat that? This time, in English?
-Steve
Frederic Giacometti
>>> As soon as you learn how to SPELL Freddy, then come back...
>>>
>>> IT'S I-R-A-Q, NOT 'K'!!!!!
>
>>We have the freedom of spelling in this country. I'll spell Irak if I want so.
>>I spell it I-R-A-K.
>
> Very well, from this moment on, I CHOOSE to spell Fred: I-D-I-O-T
No, you must respect the pronounciation.
>Idiot> Yap, don't go out of your cocoon and do like the ostrich (?); and imagine the
>Idiot> world.
>
> Exscuzzzzz me? could you repeat that? This time, in English?
Who are you talking to ? Who's this person ?
--
Frederic Giacometti
giac...@ecn.purdue.edu
Frederic Giacometti
Tatata, do not give this tip to Mr Expert Wienrich; he's gonna see that we,
foreign students, can outsmart him and he will get angry again.
--
Frederic Giacometti
giac...@ecn.purdue.edu
GarBear Irick
>
>Tatata, do not give this tip to Mr Expert Wienrich; he's gonna see that we,
>foreign students, can outsmart him and he will get angry again.
>
> giac...@ecn.purdue.edu
OK, here we go, another person joins the flaming.....
I am SICK and TIRED of the reverse discrimination and general attitude of
some of the people at this "international" university we call Purdue. I am
glad that I go to such an institution; I think we need to learn that
EVERYONE on this planet has something worthwhile to add. HOWEVER....
[begin flaming....]
This kind of bullshit attitude of yours, Mr. Giacometti, has GOT to go.
Think about what YOU would say if *I*, being a native citizen of these
United States, were to imply that all FOREIGN students were small-minded
idiots!! I don't think that would go over too well. HOWEVER, it seems
PERFECTLY legitimate for a foreign student such as yourself to ridicule
anyone at Purdue who just HAPPENS to live here!!!
It may be true that there are some real boneheads here, simply because
ANYONE in the great state of Indiana are accepted. However, I could have
gone anywhere in the world with my academic credentials. I will NOT
tolerate someone like YOU telling me that I am stupid, simply because YOU
come from a foreign country!
Coming from another country does NOT make one inferior. HOWEVER, it does
*NOT* make one SUPERIOR, either!!! If you truly want an "international"
university, you have to accept that we ALL can make a positive contribution,
as long as we don't let silly differences, like nationality, get in the
way.
Equality is ONE thing. Superiority is yet another. Foreign students are
no different than home-grown ones. Don't try to tell *ME* that I am DUMB
just because I come from the United States, Mr. Giacometti. And don't
try to tell me you are smarter, for the complementary reason. Nationality
has NO bearing on the issue at hand.
--
Gary A. Irick, Purdue University | "You can log out any time you like,
INTERNET: ir...@en.ecn.purdue.edu | But you can never leave!"
UUCP: ...!pur-ee!irick | (apologies to The Eagles)
Cory Club ...
Some of us have had enough of this constant bickering. Do you think we can
hold some kind of talk about the crisis or are we just going to slap on people?
Don't you agree Garry?
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
| Cory Club the club that is easy to join .... |
| cory c. kihlstrom kihl...@en.ecn.purdue.edu |
|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Frederic Giacometti
>In article <1991Jan23....@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> giac...@haley.ecn.purdue.edu (Frederic Giacometti) writes:
>>
>>Tatata, do not give this tip to Mr Expert Wienrich; he's gonna see that we,
>>foreign students, can outsmart him and he will get angry again.
>>
>> Frederic Giacometti
>> giac...@ecn.purdue.edu
>
>OK, here we go, another person joins the flaming.....
>
>I am SICK and TIRED of the reverse discrimination and general attitude of
>some of the people at this "international" university we call Purdue. I am
>glad that I go to such an institution; I think we need to learn that
>EVERYONE on this planet has something worthwhile to add. HOWEVER....
>
>[begin flaming....]
>
>This kind of bullshit attitude of yours, Mr. Giacometti, has GOT to go.
>Think about what YOU would say if *I*, being a native citizen of these
>United States, were to imply that all FOREIGN students were small-minded
>idiots!! I don't think that would go over too well. HOWEVER, it seems
>PERFECTLY legitimate for a foreign student such as yourself to ridicule
>anyone at Purdue who just HAPPENS to live here!!!
Mr Irick, I would consider your irate answer as an attempt to justify
the anti-foreigner climate present on this campus. Given the assumption
you read english better than I do, and that my sentence, reprinted above,
is clear for you to read; nothing in the above justifies such answer; it
is quite clear I restrain myself to M. Wienrich who, in an earlier message
thought it would be spiritual to call me "Idiot" because of my spelling
and my grammar.
Nothing justifies such answer, if not some eventual paranoia and ill feelings
related to foreign presence on this campus.
>It may be true that there are some real boneheads here, simply because
>ANYONE in the great state of Indiana are accepted. However, I could have
>gone anywhere in the world with my academic credentials. I will NOT
presomptuous
>tolerate someone like YOU telling me that I am stupid, simply because YOU
>come from a foreign country!
Is your name Mr. Expert Weinrich ? Have you been called "Idiot" because
of your spelling in a foreign language ? I'm affraid you've put your foot
in your mouth and found a reason to blast against foreign presence on campus.
>Coming from another country does NOT make one inferior. HOWEVER, it does
>*NOT* make one SUPERIOR, either!!! If you truly want an "international"
>university, you have to accept that we ALL can make a positive contribution,
>as long as we don't let silly differences, like nationality, get in the
>way.
Who talks about nationality ? There are less silly differences you seem
to ignore: cultural differences.
>Equality is ONE thing. Superiority is yet another. Foreign students are
>no different than home-grown ones. Don't try to tell *ME* that I am DUMB
>just because I come from the United States, Mr. Giacometti. And don't
You invented it, Mr. Irick. I've never even thought of such a thing. I
don't know what sort of complex you're presenting us; I don't want to
know. I was merely answering to M. Weinrich provocative posting. If
you're having some problems with your foreign classmates or T.A.s, please,
don't put them on my head, I'm for nothing in it, I'm neither one.
--
Frederic Giacometti
giac...@ecn.purdue.edu
Frederic Giacometti
>In article <1991Jan23.2...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> giac...@haley.ecn.purdue.edu (Frederic Giacometti) writes:
>>Nothing justifies such answer, if not some eventual paranoia and ill feelings
>>related to foreign presence on this campus.
>
>as your racist tendencies have unveiled themselves of late. This is
Which US citizens are you talking about ? You know as well as I do that many
of these considered as "foreign" by your prejudiced attitudes are US citizens or
have a green card.
>Believe it or not, Freddie, some of us aren't from Indiana, and actually
>CHOSE to come to Purdue because of its considerable engineering repuatation.
>There are even some of us who could have gone to any number of other
>schools, and came to Purdue because we liked at least something about it.
So do I, no ? I don't feel obliged, however, to consider it the most
perfect eucational machine on earth, nor the paradise.
> Surely someone as clever as you could easily have
>been accepted by the school of your choice; why do you remain here? You
You are insinuating these facts. I'm not like you, I do not have these
pretentions.
>That's right, any attack against Freddie must surely be an attack against
>his race.
It's your way of thinking. You assumed, since I was attacking M. Weinrich,
that I was attacking the people of the U.S.A.; I do not make this
over-generalisation. By the way, my race is the same as yours.
--
Frederic Giacometti
giac...@ecn.purdue.edu
Longshot
>BBC and RFI broadcast last night: "according to soviet sources, 90% of teh
>bombs are missing their targets" (oh, that's why Pentagon is not giving any
>information).
I have always considered Soviet media sources to be bearers of viable
information. That is akin to having a convicted felon as a character
witness.
>> IT'S I-R-A-Q, NOT 'K'!!!!!
>We have the freedom of spelling in this country. I'll spell Irak if I want so.
>I spell it I-R-A-K.
That is simply ridiculous. To purposefully spell something incorrectly like
that out of spite lends no credibility to your argument, Phred.
--
Randy J. Ray University of Oklahoma, Norman Campus (405)/325-5370
!chinet!uokmax!randy ra...@uokmax.uucp ra...@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
"No one knows what it's like to be the the bad man, to be the sad man behind
blue eyes..." -The Who
Longshot
>So, allied air forces won't
>see anything on the ground in the sky just like what happened in Vietnam
>war. Then you would expect the counterattack of Iraqi's tanks, armors, and
>infantries under no threat of allied high tech but blind fighters and
>bombers.
>-Yi-Chieh
Unfortunately, radar does not care much for visibility. The E-2 and E-3
AEW planes can still vector in air cover fighters to intercept the Iraqi
air forces. Plus, much of the anti-air resources are radar-guided, in
particular missiles.
Sammy the Salmon
>
>Some of us have had enough of this constant bickering. Do you think we can
>hold some kind of talk about the crisis or are we just going to slap on people?
>
>Don't you agree Garry?
>
Fred a few notes calling him a rat, after reading his opinions of undergrads'
study habits, I would very much like to use this newsgroup for discussing
things other than spelling...
USENET News
My God, people, have you no conscience?
Israel was brought into existence by the U.N., in a land where the Jewish
people have held historical claims for thousands of years. The exiled Trans-
Jordanians (Palestinians) attacked Israel, without provocation, because they
did not wish to be subject to international law. Israel has been in a war for
its very survival in each decade of its existence. Now Saddam Hussein is
firing missles at Tel Aviv and Haifa, when the Israelis did not become involved
in Gulf hostilites. Deputy Defense Minister Benjamin Netanyhau
said that when the first missiles hit, the exiled Trans-Jordanians were out
in the streets cheering and screaming "kill the Jews!" Clearly they are NOT
a peace-loving people who are being oppressed by the Israelis, but rather they
are a threat to the existence of Israel, so the government has no choice but
The Palestinians can find homes in other Arab nations. No one has ever
constructed a "final solution" to exterminate the world's Arabs. The exiled
Trans-Jordanians do not have a 2000 year history of persecution. We must help
Israel to remain a strong, soverign state, so that never again will we see the
results of one madman trying to destroy an entire people.
The world owes a debt, owes restitution to the people of Israel, far above
and beyond anything that helping defend a small sliver of land can pay off.
Even though our generation should not be held responsible for the crimes of our
fathers, we nontheless should try to atone for them, and to pay the debt that
has been left to us. If we allow Israel to be destroyed by a lunatic like
Saddam Hussein, we will have no honour left, as a nation or as a people.
From: 3...@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Sammy the Salmon)
Path: sage.cc.purdue.edu!3as
Sam Sivakumar
>>
>to ground troops, such as tanks, armors, and infantries.
>If Saddam Hussein wasn't a foolish man in battle combat like some of the
>American military experts, I would guess he will reserve his precious air
>forces to attack allied ground forces after the ground war started.
And what do you think the Allied air force will be doing during
the ground battle? The "second class fighters and bombers" will be dead
meat against Allied air cover, and without air support, Iraq's armored
divisions are going to have a hell of a time. Can you say Rommel? You
bet the Allies can, once again!
--
Sam Sivakumar | " Disneyland has its share of mysteries.... like,
Lithography Dude | why does Donald wear only a top and no bottom,
Basketball Nut | while Mickey wears only a bottom and no top? "
| -- Sam Malone
Frederic Giacometti
Bear in mind that it is only a transliteration of
an Arabic name. References follow:
(1) Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary, G.&C. Merriam Co.,
1965 (unabridged), p. 1193, contains the following entries:
iraq also irak ...
iraqi also iraki ...
iraqian also irakian ...
(2) Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary, vol. 2, H-N,
1976, Oxford, p. 364, the supplement to the 12 vol Oxford
English Dictionary, contains the following entry:
Iraqi, also Iraki ...
The examples of usage of spelling with a "k" range from
1777 to 1965. The 1777 usage was as a synonym for
Babylonian.
--
Frederic Giacometti
giac...@ecn.purdue.edu
Cory Club ...
Do we really care for what follows?
>Irak is an accepted English (even American English) spelling.
>Bear in mind that it is only a transliteration of
>an Arabic name. References follow:
>
>(1) Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary, G.&C. Merriam Co.,
> 1965 (unabridged), p. 1193, contains the following entries:
1965 ??!??!??
can't we find anything newer?
The English language changes. What was proper in 1965 may not be
proper today ...
> iraq also irak ...
> iraqi also iraki ...
> iraqian also irakian ...
>
>(2) Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary, vol. 2, H-N,
> 1976, Oxford, p. 364, the supplement to the 12 vol Oxford
> English Dictionary, contains the following entry:
> Iraqi, also Iraki ...
>
> The examples of usage of spelling with a "k" range from
> 1777 to 1965. The 1777 usage was as a synonym for
> Babylonian.
This is 1991. The 90's. What is the current accepted spelling?
>--
>
> Frederic Giacometti
> giac...@ecn.purdue.edu
Gene Gross
>>
>> Then exactly what use are they to the IraQi people?? Gee Bob, better
>>watch out for those IraQi planes, they can run away REAL fast. That
>>is, if they ever show up to the fight in the first place. Scares me to
>>death those non-combatant planes. Wheweee! [wipping brow]
>
>You'll cry more in two weeks when body bags will start arriving.
What a clown!! We know that our ground troops are going to have a hard
time of it, but do not underestimate our ability to carry the war to the
IraQi troops. Our commanders in the field are not fools. They know
that they are up against some of the hardest fighting ever, but they are
prepared mentally and physically.
Wait until the IraQi military and Saddam gets an eyeball on the number
of dead, wounded, and captured IraQi troops. So far, the minor border
clashes have shown that we can not only hold our own, but we can kick
butt!
>> "...I think our people are starting to doubt us since many of our
>>major military communication sights have been bombed into rubble. I
>>believe our best tactic is to beat the POWs and then force them to
>>read scripts that make the Americans and other allied nations look
>>like weenies."
>
>Who's being manipulated with images? The West or Irak ?
You are! So obvious that a 6-year old can understand it. Saddam is
trying to sway public opinion by using our POWs, which includes Brits
and Italiano as well.
What Saddam has done is no surprise to those who have been following his
rise to power. He is a power hungry, narcissistic, meglomaniac with no
concern for the needs of others. This man even kills his own family
members -- about like the dons of the Black Hand.
>> Kinda useless. Unless of course they assemble these small forces
>>into a fighting machine. But let me beat you to the punch:
>>
>> "We'd never be able to detect them flying 150 squadrens of 5 or 6
>>planes each across the country side!"
>>
>> WRONG! Sigh...
>
>BBC and RFI broadcast last night: "according to soviet sources, 90% of teh
>bombs are missing their targets" (oh, that's why Pentagon is not giving any
>information).
What do you expect them to say!? For crying out loud, they've given
this idiot everything they could to make him a major military power in
the region. But so far, his only response has been some aborted air
sorties that have ended in all engaging IraQi aircraft being killed,
SCUDs being knocked out of the air, and plenty of AAA fire that isn't
doing a whole lot. Figure this, over 10,000 sorties flown -- how many
Allied aircraft down due to IraQi anti-aircraft fire!? Last count I had
was 12, but even at 15, you have to admit that is not a large number.
And to make it even worse, tankers are flying within range of his SAMs
and yet not one tanker has come under attack. Shoot, even the NVA did
better against our B-52s. The IraQis can't even take out unarmed birds
in the air!!
Get a life, pal!
>>And? So what you are attempting to say is that this is something we
>>didn't ALREADY know going into this war? That somehow we just figured
>>it out as we went flying by? You are more of a sniveling fool than I
>>first believed Fred.
>
>It's something hidden by the media. What was teh point of bashing over our
>heads during the week-end that "two nuclear reactor were definitively damaged",
>if not to manipulate the opinion ?
The point, clown, is that we know about their bunkers. The Allies have
the weapons to take them out. Just this morning I hear reports from
both American and British sources that the IraQis tried to attack the
fleet in the Gulf. The IraQi planes didn't even get within range before
our planes (our meaning Allies) took them out. The Americans have
runway busters, and the French have weapons for taking out the fortified
underground hangers. Even when his planes manage to get airborne, they
run instead of engaging, most of the time. And the few that do try to
engage Allied aircraft in combat are killed without inflicting any
damage to Allied aircraft.
As for the underground bunkers, when the time comes to take them out,
you will be able to tour Baghdad in a a year or so and see the holes in
the ground where these bunkers remain buried under tons of desert sand.
Large graves is all they are.
>> As soon as you learn how to SPELL Freddy, then come back...
>>
>> IT'S I-R-A-Q, NOT 'K'!!!!!
>
>We have the freedom of spelling in this country. I'll spell Irak if I want so.
>I spell it I-R-A-K.
Wrong!! boy-o! The standard English for America, based upon the
Webster's Dictionary, has Iraq with a "q" and not a "k." Only
bullheadedness would cause you to do this, and a desire to ridicule
America and English. This idea of freedom of spelling is not a real
one.
Snort, gravit brat sump tiddly rank. And, you're sulmp raddy tufor.
fubar.
>Yap, don't go out of your cocoon and do like the ostrich (?); and imagine the
>world.
Must be talking about Saddam Hussein again. He's wrapped in his
concrete and steel cocoon with his head buried like an ostrich down
there in his bunker. Yep, just like Hitler in Berlin.
BTW, I heard today that those bunkers do in fact have vents. Remember
the video of the F-117A run on an above ground bunker where it targeted
the vent on the roof. Placed a 2,000-pound bomb right down the vent.
Wouldn't that be a lovely present for Saddam!?
Gene
"Rock and Roll time! Go, Scud-busters!!"
Frederic Giacometti
>In article <1991Jan23....@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> giac...@haley.ecn.purdue.edu (Frederic Giacometti) writes:
>>>In article <weinrich....@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu> wein...@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Steve Weinrich) writes:
>>> As soon as you learn how to SPELL Freddy, then come back...
>>>
>>> IT'S I-R-A-Q, NOT 'K'!!!!!
>>
>>We have the freedom of spelling in this country. I'll spell Irak if I want so.
>>I spell it I-R-A-K.
>
>Wrong!! boy-o! The standard English for America, based upon the
>Webster's Dictionary, has Iraq with a "q" and not a "k." Only
>bullheadedness would cause you to do this, and a desire to ridicule
>America and English. This idea of freedom of spelling is not a real
>one.
Jesus Christ !! (or do you prefer the "Geez(us)" spelling?). The connection
you were hereby able to make really overcame my intelligence. Are you
one of these NRA members applying teh 2d ammendement to the bear of assault
rifle also ? Liberty of speech if part of this country; and english
is no official language either. Not saying that the Myrriam Webster unabridged
version also acknowldeges the "k" spelling of Irak.
Freedom of spelling is not a real one ? Do you want me to start listing
the words that YOU mispell with regard to the actual original English
language (not to talk about all these you completely misspronounce to the
point nobody can recognize it) ?
Hey, Bully, how do you pronounce "Irak" and "Iraki" ? I'd bet you don't know
the proper pronounciation.
--
Frederic Giacometti
giac...@ecn.purdue.edu
Dan N Wiebe
Randy J. Ray writes:
>That is simply ridiculous. To purposefully spell something incorrectly like
>that out of spite lends no credibility to your argument, Phred.
I don't generally like to come down on the side of somebody who's
being pettily spiteful, but the fact is that there *is* no "correct"
spelling of "Iraq" in Roman letters, because it's just a transliteration.
The correct spelling is in the Arabic alphabet, and all we can do is
come up with some combination of Roman letters that persuade an English-
speaking person to make roughly the proper sounds when pronouncing it.
"Iraq" is *conventional,* but in reality no more *correct* than "Irak."
To tell the truth, I kind of like "Irak" better myself, because that
un-u'ed "q" in "Iraq" looks weird.
As an analog, remember when Beijing was Peking? The name of the
city didn't change; somebody just decided that the sounds stimulated by
"Beijing" were closer to the actual Chinese pronunciation than those
stimulated by "Peking." Not being an expert on Chinese linguistics, I'm
inclined not to argue.
This is the same thing that trips people up who argue about the
correct spelling of Chanukah/Hannukah/Chanukka/whatever. There *isn't*
any correct spelling in the Roman alphabet--only in the Hebrew alphabet.
Just my $0.02 (residents of Ohio add $0.0011 sales tax)
Shalom,
Dan Wiebe
d...@rsch.oclc.org
Siddarth Subramanian
>
>Randy J. Ray writes:
>>That is simply ridiculous. To purposefully spell something incorrectly like
>>that out of spite lends no credibility to your argument, Phred.
>
> I don't generally like to come down on the side of somebody who's
>being pettily spiteful, but the fact is that there *is* no "correct"
>spelling of "Iraq" in Roman letters, because it's just a transliteration.
>The correct spelling is in the Arabic alphabet, and all we can do is
>come up with some combination of Roman letters that persuade an English-
>speaking person to make roughly the proper sounds when pronouncing it.
>"Iraq" is *conventional,* but in reality no more *correct* than "Irak."
>To tell the truth, I kind of like "Irak" better myself, because that
>un-u'ed "q" in "Iraq" looks weird.
The 'q' here, I believe, is used to refer to a sound that is unique to
middle eastern languages. It is like a 'k' except that it is produced
way at the back of the mouth almost in the throat. It's like a little
snap in your throat (using the same muscles you use when you gargle).
I hope that makes it clear :-).
Anyway, the reason for using a different letter is to distinguish it
from the regular k sound. If you are into pronouncing things right
(that excludes all you folks who persist in saying 'Aayrack') you'll
know what the sound is by reading the transliteration. I guess it
looks weird because it is meant to.
--
Siddarth Subramanian INTERNET: sidd...@cs.utexas.edu
UUCP: uunet!cs.utexas.edu!siddarth
Gene Gross
>fighters and bombers. So, why bother to waste their impotent but precious
>airplanes to the allied superior air forces ?
>However, even those second class fighters or bombers will do severe damage
>to ground troops, such as tanks, armors, and infantries.
>If Saddam Hussein wasn't a foolish man in battle combat like some of the
>American military experts, I would guess he will reserve his precious air
>forces to attack allied ground forces after the ground war started.
>Once Iraqis' air forces being all eliminated in attacking the allied ground
>forces, Saddam may set fire on most of the Kuwaiti's oil wells, such that the
>heavy smoke may turn the desert into a 'forest'. So, allied air forces won't
>see anything on the ground in the sky just like what happened in Vietnam
>war. Then you would expect the counterattack of Iraqi's tanks, armors, and
>infantries under no threat of allied high tech but blind fighters and
>bombers.
Here we go again, another one-dimensional thinker out there trying to
score points!!
Listen up, friend, you seem a bit uninformed about the use of air power
during a ground assault. First of all, our air power will be above the
ground troops at all times. Should Iraq attempt sorties over the FEBA
or behind our part of the FEBA, our aircraft will be there waiting for
them. Just like today when the Iraqis tried to attack Naval vessels in
the Gulf -- they never even got within range to launch their Exocets.
And just now on the ABC radio station locally came a report that Iraq
tried to sortie over Saudi territority -- care to guess at the results!?
Also, you seem unaware of air mobility and the use of covert ops units
in the area to secure key facilities and installations at the time of
the initial assault upon Iraqi ground forces.
If you had a better understanding of the doctrine governing all of this,
you might not be so quick to believe that SH or his military commanders
can achieve much of what they want us to believe that they can. He may
have a few things up his sleeve, but I assure you that the military has
looked at every possibility and determined what is the best response to
each possibility. The US (sorry Allies, I don't know about other
military organizations quite as well as my own) military is capable of
adjusting to the rapidly changing scene of combat. The Iraqis have a
major disadvantage -- they patterned their military after the Soviet
model with rule from the top down and no "brownie-points" for individual
initiative or thinking. Cut the head off the beast, and the body dies.
In combat, American units have shown a remarkable ability to survive
the loss of commanders and continue to press the attack on the enemy.
And as for the Iraqi tanks and artillery, you have no idea what you are
talking about. You seem to have little knowledge of American or
Coalition tanks and artillery. Far be it from me to enlighten you --
that is what the library is for. ;-)
Gene
"Go get 'em, Scud-busters!!!"
Doug Dreger
GET A LIFE !
e elizabeth bartley
personally, but everybody who reads this newsgroup is going to understand
both spellings.
Nobody who wants to spell it Irak is going to start spelling it Iraq, and
nobody who wants to spell it Iraq is going to start spelling it Irak -- this
argument is simply a waste of computer time, not to mention mine [:-)]!
- E. Elizabeth Bartley (ee...@quads.uchicago.edu)
Ronald BODKIN
>is quite clear I restrain myself to M. Wienrich who, in an earlier message
>thought it would be spiritual to call me "Idiot" because of my spelling
>and my grammar.
there is a distinction between misspelling Iraq as Irak and saying "No IRAK
is acceptable, aren't we FREE to spell however we like" (of course one IS
free to be just as ignorant & stupid as one likes in America, but so what?)
I too believe that such an attitude is idiotic and it has nothing to do
with whether the poster is foreign or domestic.
Ron
Rick Butland
>>
>fighters and bombers. So, why bother to waste their impotent but precious
>airplanes to the allied superior air forces ?
>However, even those second class fighters or bombers will do severe damage
>to ground troops, such as tanks, armors, and infantries.
>If Saddam Hussein wasn't a foolish man in battle combat like some of the
>American military experts, I would guess he will reserve his precious air
>forces to attack allied ground forces after the ground war started.
True, if allowed to attack unchallenged; I rather doubt the Allied F-14's,
F-15's, F-16's, F/A-18's, and Patriot/Hawk/Roland/Rapier/Stinger SAM's will
allow this to happen. Iraqi performance in the Iran-Iraq war suggests that
they will not be able to press home such attacks, and, in fact, are unwilling
to. Reports from that war indicate that in the face of even light ground fire,
they would either break off their attacks, or make them from high altitude.
While high-altitude bombing may be effective from strategic bombers due to
the sheer volume of munitions, it's doubtful that it would be very effective
from tactical aircraft. I don't believe that they possess any 'intelligent'
munitions. This is not to say they (their air force) cannot be effective,
they can reportedly deliver cluster munitions, FAE's, and chemical agents from
their aircraft. But first they have to get there.
By the way, some of their aircraft are decidedly *not* second rate; the Mig-29,
and SU-24 are first-rate aircraft. But, "it's the man, not the machine".
His best chance of inflicting damage is probably to attack shipping in the
Gulf with his Mirage F1's, and Exocets; such an attack was apparently
attempted yesterday, the results of which are well-known by now.
>Once Iraqis' air forces being all eliminated in attacking the allied ground
>forces, Saddam may set fire on most of the Kuwaiti's oil wells, such that the
>heavy smoke may turn the desert into a 'forest'. So, allied air forces won't
>see anything on the ground in the sky just like what happened in Vietnam
>war. Then you would expect the counterattack of Iraqi's tanks, armors, and
>infantries under no threat of allied high tech but blind fighters and
>bombers.
>
This presumes that he will be able to move the Kuwaiti oil fields to
appropriate positions near his lines . . .
Regarding counter-attacks, his strategy is quite obvious, the Republican
Guards constitute his mobile reserve, whose mission is to contain and
destroy any break-throughs. Which is precisely why they are under attack.
If they can be contained or rendered ineffective, the rest of his strategy
falls apart; does the name "Maginot Line" ring any bells?
Rick
Timothy De Zwaan
[to giac...@haley.ecn.p]
> Actually, he did this after you refused to change incorrect spelling;
> there is a distinction between misspelling Iraq as Irak
Enough is enough! This newsgroup has almost 400 messages a day. It's
difficult enough to wade through all the irrelevent bumpf, but I've now
seen 12 (count 'em, 12!) messages today bickering about this ridiculous
spelling bee. Cut it out!
As long as I'm being pissy, I might as well take the opportunity to ask
people to please stop the excessive quoting. Just taking a random
sample, I look back at 20 messages immediately before this one, and 18
out of 20 have more quoted material than new. 15 out of 20 have over
twice as much quoted material as new. Folks, 70% of the bandwidth here
is redundant quotes. If you feel it's necessary, quote one or two lines
simply to remind readers of the original message. It's *very* obnoxious
to include 20 lines of quotes to make a 3 line response.
This stuff is being shipped all over the world to hundreds of thousands
of sites. Use a little discretion people.
------
Timothy De Zwaan zwaaney!t...@sactoh0.SAC.CA.US
Zwaaney River ...ames!pacbell!sactoh0!zwaaney!tim
Sacramento, California USA 1:203/6.23
Michael McNeil
>Michael McNeil wrote:
>>No, but if 40 years ago the United Nations had granted a small part of
>>my country to a group of Indians,
>I'm confused. Do you mean to imply that you would recognize UN supremacy
>over the Constitution? Or do you think Indians should have been located
>in Palestine?
One can't stretch analogies too far. Moreover my country is the United
States, so clearly I'm not talking about settling Indians in Palestine.
Considering Palestine vis-a-vis the United Nations, it is my
understanding that Palestine originally (post-Ottoman Empire) was
administered by Britain under a League of Nations Mandate -- which
became a United Nations Mandate after World War II. Thus, the U.N.
had a very definite legal say in the future structure of Palestine.
Even in the case of the United States, the U.S. Senate has approved
the United Nations Treaty, which thus became the law of the land in
the United States -- on a par with the Constitution. Furthermore,
the Charter of the U.N. most definitely allows the Security Council to
*require* member states to perform stipulated actions (which provision
was recently applied to Iraq). Of course, since the U.S. has a veto
on the Security Council, the Council would seem unable to pass such a
resolution with respect to the U.S. I suppose the General Assembly
could vote to give the U.N. Headquarters back to the Indians....
>>they thereupon had occupied the land, raised several generations of
>>youngsters, and defended the land against all comers (a great many
>>of them) during that period, then I'd say that they have a right to
>>stay and live there.
>But suppose that the United Nations had awarded Manhattan to a large
>group of *Thais*, or Nigerians, or Frenchmen, or whatever, 40 years
>ago, displacing the original inhabitants of the population?
What if they had? Forty years later is too late to evict people from
their homes, I say, regardless of where they come from. In the case of
Israel, most Israelis, as I understand it, have been born and grew up
in Israel -- and most "Palestinians" have never seen it. Of course
the Palestinians should have a homeland -- just not located in Israel.
>>Revanchism
>Sorry? What language is that word from? My dictionaries do not list it.
It's English, though derived from French. *The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language* (1980) defines it as follows:
re.vanch.ism *n*. A foreign policy motivated by a
desire to regain territory lost earlier to an enemy.
[From French *revanche*, revenge, from *revancher*,
to revenge, from Old French *revencher*, to REVENGE.]
>>can have no moral justification if too much time has passed since the
>>original population was displaced
>I see. Unfortunately, the displacement of Arabs in Palestine is an
>*ongoing* process.
Very few, only known troublemakers, are being deported from the
Occupied Territories; this has no significant impact on the Arab
population as a whole. Nor are large numbers of Jews currently being
settled in the Territories, so this statement would seem to be false.
>Arabs in the West Bank form the *overwhelming* majority of occupants.
>Should Israel "keep" this land, they will have to:
>
>(a) accomodate these people--who, in conjunction with Arabs in Israel,
>will eventually produce a majority of the population of Israel--and
>thus the dissolution of the Jewish state;
This has been predicted for a long time, but what do we see happening
now? Huge migrations of Soviet Jews are overwhelming this demographic
trend, postponing the day of reckoning for many years to come. Many
things can happen in the future. Arabs could become more prosperous,
and cease reproducing at such a high rate. Israeli Jews could have
a baby boom. American Jews might flee God-knows-what to a refuge in
Israel. Israeli Arabs *might* convert to Judaism in large numbers.
A lot of improbable-sounding things can happen in a "mere" 40 years
or so. The Israelis might put their faith in the unknown future. I
suspect, however, that a two-state solution will be tried in the end.
>(b) expel them, which, by you own definition, is morally unacceptable;
I agree that one cannot expel people who are willing to live in peace.
>(c) keep the thumb-screws on indefinitely, levying inappropriate taxation
>and duress, keeping them second-class citizens. The "blacks" of Israel.
>
>It seems to me that you're using a double-standard--it's okay for the
>Indians to have their own state, since they were here "originally," or
>for the Zionists to displace a large number of Palestinians from their
>land, after a 2,000-year *absence,* but it's not okay for Palestinians--
>who have a rather intense desire for a homeland--to reclaim their land
>from the Zionists, after a mere 40-year absence.
Forty years is not *mere*. I give practically zero weight to land
claims millennia stale. No, what gives Israel its right to exist as
a society and state is precisely these last 40 some odd years, and to
a lesser extent to the fact that many of the Jews of Israel had lived
there for decades prior to 1948; moreover the Jewish population of
Palestine was quite high during the previous century and beyond.
I repeat, most Palestinians have never seen Israel; most Israelis have
lived nowhere else. The new generations of Israelis are guilty of no
crime except defending their country -- regardless of what moral burden
their parents or grandparents may carry (a highly debatable point, as
a glance at the debates on talk.politics.mideast reveals). Israelis
have a right to live in peace in their own country. And if the Germans
can totally give up their rights to Prussia and Silesia -- lands that
had been part of "Germany" for centuries -- and if Poles can accept
giving up huge regions to the Soviet Union, then the Palestinians
can learn to live with a state of Israel adjacent to their own state.
However, they must permanently give up the dream of destroying Israel.
>Robert Dorsett
--
Michael McNeil mich...@vax.DSD.3Com.COM (3comvax.UUCP)
3Com Corporation ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
Santa Clara, California work telephone: (408) 492-1790 x 5-208
Who knows for certain? Who shall here declare it?
Whence was it born, whence came creation?
The gods are later than this world's formation;
Who then can know the origins of the world?
None knows whence creation arose;
And whether he has or has not made it;
He who surveys it from the lofty skies,
Only he knows -- or perhaps he knows not.
*The Rig Veda*, X. 129
Andy
>In article <weinrich....@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu> wein...@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Steve Weinrich) writes:
>>>wein...@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Steve Weinrich) writes: <ME :) >
>>>>a...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (PK) writes:
>> "...I think our people are starting to doubt us since many of our
>>major military communication sights have been bombed into rubble. I
>>believe our best tactic is to beat the POWs and then force them to
>>read scripts that make the Americans and other allied nations look
>>like weenies."
>Who's being manipulated with images? The West or Irak ?
You choose. How would you feel if you watched the enemy planes fly overhead
virtually unopposed, destroying with impunity, and with (by comparison with
your own offensive weapons) devastating accuracy (lest you challenge, the
American troops (spec. my brother, in his fax that he got to me)
complain about those "damn SCUDs", because they're so
damn hard to shoot out of the air, because they are so incredibly unpredictable
/inaccurate)
>>>RFI broadcast: "Iraki have aproximately 150 small size military airports
>>>scattered across the country; on each of them, 5 or 6 planes are parked
>>>in bunkers", "the destruction of each of them is almost impossible".
>>
>> Kinda useless. Unless of course they assemble these small forces
>>into a fighting machine. But let me beat you to the punch:
>>
>> "We'd never be able to detect them flying 150 squadrens of 5 or 6
>>planes each across the country side!"
>>
>> WRONG! Sigh...
>
>BBC and RFI broadcast last night: "according to soviet sources, 90% of teh
>bombs are missing their targets" (oh, that's why Pentagon is not giving any
>information).
Oh yes, and the soviets are SUCH RELIABLE sources of information... So
unbiased, right? And I bet you'd say they're completely behind us. RIGHT!
>>>RFI broadcast: "Iraki at least five of six small size nuclear reactors
>>>dissimulated underground". "Iraki defenses are very difficult to spot, they
>>>are five or six stories deep".
>>
>>And? So what you are attempting to say is that this is something we
>>didn't ALREADY know going into this war? That somehow we just figured
>>it out as we went flying by? You are more of a sniveling fool than I
>>first believed Fred.
>
>It's something hidden by the media. What was teh point of bashing over our
>heads during the week-end that "two nuclear reactor were definitively damaged",
>if not to manipulate the opinion ?
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I don't see your point. Are you saying that the
IraQi nuclear reactors are hard to find? Have you ever seen a military capable
/ research reactor? We have one of the smallest here on campus, and something
its size would be utterly useless for research, and even it would not be the
easiest thing in the world to hide. Try virtually impossible for a determined
opponent. If your point is that we are being manipulated by the terrible
US military, etc., welcome to wartime. Every war in history has been
misrepresented. And if you argue that the military is being really mean for
censoring news, so are the Iraqis (in fact, they're feeding that naive CNN
reporter exactly the kind of garbage they want us to see), and the British,
and the French, and the Soviets, and ad nauseum.
>>>RFI broadcast last week: "US have 240,000 tons of bomb in reserve. Given that
>>>they must keep some to support ground attacks, they'll have to attack in
>>>9 days from now, Irakis will get out then".
Sure, they'll wait till we're ready to attack, then get out. Have you ever
tried to move 500,000 troops quickly. It ain't gonna happen.
>We have the freedom of spelling in this country. I'll spell Irak if I want so.
>I spell it I-R-A-K.
Since when. If you spelled and used grammar as poorly as you are on here during
a job interview, you'd have a hard time getting a job at McD's. We have
freedoms, spelling incorrectly in communication is NOT one of them. You have
a RESPONSIBILITY to learn to spell and phrase things Korrectly.
>>>Who said the Iraki were surprised? The US tactic of massive bombing and
>>>high-tech war has been known for a long time. Don't trust Pentagone
>>>communique's and US media; it's manipulation.
Who said they were? People said that it SEEMED like Hussein and crew were
suprised, because they did not and would not fight back effectively.
>>
>> It's manipulation to those who believe that the media is telling us
>>something usefull when they say things like: "it appears that..."
>
>The problem with US media is that Pentagon is their only source. Very
BULLS&$* ! The Pentagon doesn't TOUCH the dissimilation of news. They
don't have the time or the resources for it. The field commanders and their
superiors may censor some of the news, but they are NOT a source.
>disturbing situation, this monopole over information communique's.
I thought a monopole was something in E&M Physics. Hmm. I'm confused.
USE ENGLISH! Correctly! You didn't even use communique's correctly in your
meager attempt to appear intelligent! The phrase would be best worded,'this
monopoly on communication' or 'monopoly on information'.
[Useless garbage about Enquirer deleted]
>
>>>Some other news you won't hear about in US media: major riots in Maroco,
>>>Algeria, and Tunisia. Schools closed, several deads. Algerian parliement
>>>was asked to send troops to support Irak. Important pressures on Turkey
>>>from arab countries so that they shot down their airfields to allied
>>>airplanes.
You're right, we haven't because they don't consider it important.
COULD YOU PLEASE REWORD THE LAST SENTENCE? I DON'T UNDERSTAND SHOOTING DOWN
AIRFIELDS --TO-- ALLIED AIRPLANES. -Shouting deliberate-
Complete sentences please.
>(and some understanding of British English, of course). I understand
>now why they removed SCOLA from the university cable. Some like Steve
>were getting worried that these foreing sources of information would
^^^^^^^ ? is that foreign?
>disturb the daily ratio of well-prepared information injected to the
>US media networks from the Pentagon and the White House bureau of information.
Actually, I think this was done a little before 'Steve' (how could Steve
influence this before he got into the U?) or anyone else could have worried
about your useless bullshit. What the hell is the White House bureau of
information? And once again, THE PENTAGON DOES NOT CREATE NEWS! They may
censor, but they don't CREATE it.
>
>> Ah, I forgot to mention, I read your article in the Excrement today:
But at least you seemed to know how to use a spelling checker/grammar checker,
or else the Excrement EXTENSIVELY edited your article, which incidently, was
a bunch of bull. Get your facts and your English straight before you "right"
to us again.
Sincerely,
Your worst English Teacher Nightmare,
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Miller - Politically Incorrect and Proud of it!
Tarkington Hall SE116, Purdue University.
And an account rose from the ashes of the predecessor, to maim and destroy
Andy
He didn't invent it. You did. You outright attacked American students for being
provincial and ignorant, merely because they weren't from another country.
And he was not being presumptuous by saying that he could have gotten in
anywhere. He was merely telling the truth, as would I if I said a similar
statement.
TO EVERYONE! QUIT THE FLAME WAR, ALL IT'S DOING IS PISSING PEOPLE OFF.
NO ONE IS LISTENING TO THE OPPOSITE SIDE, OK?
Andy
>forces, Saddam may set fire on most of the Kuwaiti's oil wells, such that the
>heavy smoke may turn the desert into a 'forest'. So, allied air forces won't
>see anything on the ground in the sky just like what happened in Vietnam
>war. Then you would expect the counterattack of Iraqi's tanks, armors, and
>infantries under no threat of allied high tech but blind fighters and
>bombers.
>-Yi-Chieh
Except that our tech has advanced a bit since Vietnam, and we now can 'see'
through much of that 'forest', so our high tech fighters and bombers would
not be blind.
Bryon S. Lape
>
>>>>
>>>> IT'S I-R-A-Q, NOT 'K'!!!!!
>>
>>>I spell it I-R-A-K.
>>
>
>No, you must respect the pronounciation.
>
>>Idiot> Yap, don't go out of your cocoon and do like the ostrich (?); and imagine the
>>Idiot> world.
>>
>> Exscuzzzzz me? could you repeat that? This time, in English?
>
>Who are you talking to ? Who's this person ?
>
>--
>
> Frederic Giacometti
> giac...@ecn.purdue.edu
FLAME ON:
Fred and Steve, take your "discusion" elsewhere, please. Fred is
obviously a liberal and has his head up his ass. Steve is in touch with
reality and appears to be Republican. If Fred where to have his way,
Kennnedy and Dukakis would be "in power", taxes would be through the roof,
and there would be no military budget. Hey Fred, have you forgotten that
JFK got us into Nam and the Republicans got us out? Remember what a mess
Carter made of the country and how hard Reagan had to work to get us out?
FLAME OFF:
Bryon Lape