This is topic That's it, Iraq . . . in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/1095.html

Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
 
From Reuters

You know, I was iffy on the whole "invading Iraq right now" thing, but as of now I personally want to lead the charge. And I personally want to hold Hussein down and listen to his screams while donkeys and camels have their way with him.
 
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
Sigh.
 
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
Um, yeah. And you're surprised that the Iraqis are saying stuff like this? In case you didn't notice, they hate us. They were celebrating in the streets when they heard of the attacks on September 11.

Old news... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Starship Millennium (Member # 822) on :
 
I'm surprised that people can hear about stuff like this and still act like the Iraqis are innocent little lambs and war would be a terrible loss...
 
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
Double fucking sigh.
 
Posted by Starship Millennium (Member # 822) on :
 
double post
 
Posted by Starship Millennium (Member # 822) on :
 
Indeed... oh well, at least I actually made more than a three-word contribution. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
Contribution?
 
Posted by Starship Millennium (Member # 822) on :
 
That's funny... I guess. (Now I see the secret to becoming a senior member at Flare--just troll around threads.)
 
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
Be advised that Iraq's media is state-run...say, for instance, someone would write a headline expressing sorrow for the Coumbia astronauts. That reporter would a)be imprisoned b)be killed or c)be silenced in someway. I'm sure many Iraqis feel sorry for the US today and on September 11, but there story just isn't getting out because Saddam won't let it get out. He's a dictator, and he controls what his press says.

Be advised, also, that while it may be a lie on Iraq's part, a few days after Sept. 11, maybe the 16th or so, Iraq said they would be willing to help the US in some way "if the US asked for it." But they said American arrogance would probably stop them from asking Iraq for any aid or help from Iraq after the attacks.

Yes, many of them hate us, but wouldn't you hate a country that has threatened to bomb you into oblivion for months?
 
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starship Millennium:
I'm surprised that people can hear about stuff like this and still act like the Iraqis are innocent little lambs and war would be a terrible loss...

The question of whether the Iraqis are "little lams" or not is not the issue. The problem that I have (and that UM seems to have, though I don't have a perfectly reliable Sarcasm Filter(tm) [Wink] ) is that people are against the war, against attacking Iraq -- but then act surprised when they hear that the Iraqis hate us for bombing them at random for the past twelve years and totally ruining their economy, infrastructure, and way of life.

(The previous statement does not purport to endorse any fact, but merely the apparent opinion of the Iraqi public based on interviews and stories which I have read in the past.)

It seems to me that regardless of anything the Iraqi public seems to think, it should not have an effect on anyone's opinion of whether or not to go to war. Especially because the shuttle incident has absolutely nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.
 
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
That is what I would write were I literate enough to do so.
 
Posted by Starship Millennium (Member # 822) on :
 
If anyone thinks that the Columbia loss is a reason to go to war, yes, then I agree. That's totally ridiculous.

And you're right, they have a reason to be angry since we didn't take care of Hussein when we should have, and were stupid enough to support him at one point. Jealousy over America's status as the only world superpower while most of our popular culture (read: Hollywood) has been in the crapper is also another legitimate reason to be angry. But I still can't shed a tear for the plight of the Iraqi people. They support Saddam Hussein, therefore screwing themselves over (although the point that they don't know any better is valid: all the more reason he needs to go). Once they start treating women better, stop acting like everyone hates them because of their religion, and stop using their infrastructure for war against the infidels, I still have to keep my opinion. (Emphasis on the OPINION part, m'kay? [Smile] ) Sitting back and doing nothing has obviously gotten us absolutely nowhere, as evidenced by what has happened in the last ten years.
 
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
"Jealousy over America's status as the only world superpower while most of our popular culture (read: Hollywood) has been in the crapper is also another legitimate reason to be angry."

I'm not quite sure I understand this. At all. In any way.
 
Posted by Starship Millennium (Member # 822) on :
 
Again, this is just my opinion, but most television shows, movies, and music have lately been filled with too much graphic violence, sex, and language, and it's all hailed as revolutionary. Celebrities trot themselves out at glitzy awards shows, claiming to care about the environment yet driving gas-guzzling SUVs and buying homes that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to heat and power. They all live in a dream world spending incredible amounts of money on pointless stuff. People know who J.Lo is dating this week, yet can't name their senators, let alone their representative.

I'll be the first to say that entertainment has an important place in our culture, and wouldn't want to see it go away. But when it gets to the point where you have celebrities detached from reality and people worshiping their every word and action like they're some sort of demigods, there's a problem.
 
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
 
You know, I've never understood people's adoration of celebrities. Sometimes it just gets really creepy.
 
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
 
Gentlemen, gentlemen, hang on:

1. All I ever heard from Iraq post Sept. 11 was the "if you ask for it" thing (which was tolerably asslike), and the morons cheering in the street. I did see the reports shown and translated on CNN a year afterward, which were rather flippant toward the tragedy and which included some standard party lines against American aggression, but that was it.

2. Individuals cheering in the street over September 11 are stupid and/or evil people . . . but that, in and of itself, does not demand that an invasion occur. This is not to say that I would disagree if someone were to ID each person seen cheering and perform almost any level of horribleness against them, but that's neither here nor there.

3. My opinion on Iraq was "iffy" in regards to "right now". Saddam Hussein is an evil shit, but I questioned the need of (A) an invasion (B) right now. I would have been perfectly happy with a simple assassination or some sort of kidnapping/arrest/regime-toppling, under the theory that most of the rest of Iraq was composed of decent human beings. I still hold that theory. However, the Columbia comments piss me off, and therefore I want (A) the most expeditious method of getting him out of there (B) right now.

He is not just a major asshole. To be so overjoyed by a tragedy that so touches the world is sick. And if he really was all smiles on September 11, too, then by damn he's dehumanized himself right out of the human race, in my book.
 
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
 
Guardian 2000: "This is not to say that I would disagree if someone were to ID each person seen cheering and perform almost any level of horribleness against them, but that's neither here nor there."

Before you said that, you had a decent post there. Too bad.


I would support war against Iraq if it meant the percentage of their people that DOESN'T like Saddam and HAVE been
oppressed, tortured and inhumanly treated could get somewhat of a break in their lives.
Not that it will be that easy, it could get worse, just like last time.

As for the reactions to the people being happy for 9/11, you obviously haven't contemplated that same phenomenon in
the streets of New York when they'd found out Berlin had fallen, the last of the german army lay dead or were being
marched into Moscow and Hitler had finally met a gruesome death.

Those people reacted to the news from the basis of the information they had received, that Hitler was a ruthless
dictator, that the germans were all like totally evil, that the hope of the
free world depended on the last armies of the allies defeating the Axis powers.


In the case of Hitler, we all agree we were right.

So what do you know about the information the modern middle-eastern "dancing-in-the-street" people have been fed during the last century?

And how much of it could potentially be true, about us?

Or if not necessarily us, but the portion of our populations that gladly would kill the muslim religion once and for all,
outlaw the old barbaric customs and justice systems and save the heretics from hell? Or just nuke'em if they're being stubborn?
 
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
Starship Millennium--I believe that Iraq DOES treat women well. I believe they can walk the streets freely, reveal themselves, and drive. Now, Saudi Arabia, our ALLY, does not allow this. Women must be accompanied by men at all times. they cannot drive. They must wear veils, or they can be executed. So, for a woman, Iraq is much better place to live.
 
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
(Note: I am in no way expressing support for Saddam Hussein)

You know, there's another thing I need to get off my back...if Iraqis realized how supid some Americans are, they would laugh!. Most of them can't find Iraq on a map. While at my high school, asking people if they could find Iraq on a map, they said "I don't need to know that. It doesn't affect me" and "Just because I don't know where it is doesn't mean I can't talk about what's going on there." I believe I'm the only person that knew where the country was. In fact, three people said the country was in Europe!

They also said "Oh yeah, Saddam Hussein--he's that Communist guy, right?" Communist? Saddam hates god-less Communists! Is every enemy of our country Communist?

Lastly, they can't tell Saddam from bin Laden...some said that we were chasing and couldn't find Saddam Hussein, others said bin Laden or whoever that guy is is the leader of Iraq.

*Sigh* Where is our country going?
OK, OK, that is my rant about American teenagers/current events. Continue with more Iraq bashing, please.
 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Iraq of course being well known as a hotbed of geographical awareness.
 
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
I assume most people there can find the US on a map, although I can't be sure.
 
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
Here's an interesting story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77333,00.html

This proves some people in Iraq sympathize with us. Yes, some papers say its "God's Vengenace," but just take a look.
 
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Veers:
I assume most people there can find the US on a map, although I can't be sure.

To be fair, the US (for better or worse) is the world's only superpower, so it's not surprising that most people can locate it.

It's also slightly bigger than Iraq, which aids in the spotting.
 
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
Sometimes it's also in a bright primary color, depending on what age group the map was drawn for. [Razz]
 
Posted by Starship Millennium (Member # 822) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Veers:
Starship Millennium--I believe that Iraq DOES treat women well. I believe they can walk the streets freely, reveal themselves, and drive. Now, Saudi Arabia, our ALLY, does not allow this. Women must be accompanied by men at all times. they cannot drive. They must wear veils, or they can be executed. So, for a woman, Iraq is much better place to live.

So is Saddam's harem just a rumor?
 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Well, it's certainly grounds for war.
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
 
I don't want to go to war. I didn't join the Navy to fight in a war much less die in one. If President Bush, who in my opinion is a dumbass, wants to go to war with Iraq so bad let him go there and do it himself. It's a lot easier to sit in the White House and order people to fight and die for your cause than to do it yourself.

There are plently people on my ship that also agree. They don't want to go on this 6+ month deployment to the Persian Gulf. Which means other people on other ships don't want it. Of course CNN will show us supporting the president because that's what a good military is suppose to do.

It's also why I think the Secretary of the Navy stepped down, he doesn't want to send the Navy/Marines into a war he doesn't believe in but Bush is too stubborn.

I've come to wish Clinton were back in office and this wouldn't be an issue. Whether it was smoking pot or getting head from an intern, imo Clinton was the everyman president. We weren't off starting wars with everyone we didn't like.

The George Bush Song

Sung to the tune: "If You're Happy And You Know It, Clap Your Hands"

If we cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets hurt your Mama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are Saudi
And the bank takes back your Audi
And the TV shows are bawdy,
Bomb Iraq.

If the corporate scandals growin', bomb Iraq.
And your ties to them are showin', bomb Iraq.
If the smoking gun ain't smokin'
We don't care, and we're not jokin'.
That Saddam will soon be croakin',
Bomb Iraq.

Even if we have no allies, bomb Iraq.
From the sand dunes to the valleys, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections;
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

While the globe is slowly warming, bomb Iraq.
Yay! the clouds of war are storming, bomb Iraq.
If the ozone hole is growing,
Some things we prefer not knowing.
Though our ignorance is showing),
Bomb Iraq.

So here's one for dear old daddy, bomb Iraq,
From his favorite little laddy, bomb Iraq.
Saying no would look like treason.
It's the Hussein hunting season.
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq

[ February 04, 2003, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
 
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
 
I wonder how long it'd be before that got posted here. I considered doing it just to annoy Rob, but it would really be like shooting fish. 8)
 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Actually, I already responded to this back when someone else posted it on snopes:

When the evidence is mounting, plug your ears,
Yell "imperialist" and cry phony tears,
If he gets nukes and bombs Jews,
What the Hell, it isn't YOU!
Ain't it great, you'd rather wait
Than face your fears.
 
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
Very moving. Too bad your evidence mounts to exactly zilch.

If he gets nukes

He didn't have them in '98, and he doesn't have them now.

and bombs Jews

Why would Saddam give Israel the perfect excuse to pull a Hiroshima on Baghdad and himself?

What the Hell, it isn't YOU!

Aww, gee, have we taken the moral high ground again? Are we once more trying to sell war as a purely altruistic act, no strings attached? You couldn't be more diaphanous if you tried.

Ain't it great, you'd rather wait

Yeah... I'd rather wait than light the fuse of a VERY dirty, VERY ugly conflict.

Than face your fears

See, some of us don't fear crazy dictators, just the imperialists that install them. Agendas are lovely things to advance, aren't they?

[ February 04, 2003, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: E. Cartman ]
 
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
bingo.
 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
I'd respond, but really, it's the same old junk Cartman always spews, and besides, I'm too busy boiling vats of crow for Tomorrow.

http://msnbc.com/news/868277.asp?0bl=-0


quote:
When U.S.-led forces began their air attacks against Baghdad, one of Iraq’s intelligence agencies attempted unsuccessfully to carry out terrorist bombings against U.S. embassies and other facilities, including targets in Manila, Bangkok and Jakarta, according to U.S. intelligence assessments. According to these assessments, Hussein sent pairs of agents to many countries where they were to pick up explosives or weapons that had already been sent abroad.

quote:
Two terrorists in the Philippines blew themselves up trying to plant a bomb outside the U.S. cultural center in 1991. Another bomb was found before it could be detonated outside the breakfast room of the U.S. ambassador’s residence in Jakarta.
Richard Butler, the former U.N. weapons inspector, was Australia’s ambassador to Thailand at the time of the Persian Gulf War. “Saddam sent a terrorist hit group to Bangkok,” he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last July. “The existence of that group was identified by intelligence authorities, and their plan was to make an attack upon the embassies of the United States, Australia and Israel in Bangkok.” He said the Australian embassy was targeted because Australia was part of the coalition that fought to force Iraq out of Kuwait.
Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan threatened last week to send “thousands of suicide attackers” against U.S. targets outside Iraq. “We have no long-range missiles or bomber squadrons, but we will deploy thousands of suicide attackers,” Ramadan told the German weekly, Der Spiegel. “These are our new weapons, and they will be used not only in Iraq.”


 
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
 
I guess Powell brings out the receipts, tomorrow?
 
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
I'd respond, but really, it's the same old junk Cartman always spews, and besides, I'm too busy boiling vats of crow for Tomorrow.

That's a bit unappreciative of you. It takes me a great deal of effort to drag myself down to your level so often.

BTW, how do you like that third person?
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Well, Rob may not have time, but I do. [Smile]

He didn't have [nukes] in '98, and he doesn't have them now.

Which you don't know. We DO know, however, that he's trying to get them, based on the materials he's tried to import that can only be used for that one purpose.

Why would Saddam give Israel the perfect excuse to pull a Hiroshima on Baghdad and himself?

Well, assuming that Israel has nukes, which I'll grant, this is Sadaam Housein we're talking about. He may be crazy/evil, but he's not dumb. If he was gonna nuke someone, he'd be hiding in a bunker somewhere instead of sitting in Baghdad waiting for retaliation. And I seriously doubt Israel has the weaponry to turn ALL of Iraq into a parking lot. Heck, this being Housein, I wouldn't put it past him to nuke Baghdad himself, once we had a significant number of troops there, just out of spite.

I'd rather wait than light the fuse of a VERY dirty, VERY ugly conflict.

Wait for... what? To give him more time to get the nukes that we know he's after? He's already broken his agreements, and he's trying to develop weapons that he has no legitimate use for. You think the conflict would be ugly NOW?
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 
Omega: Out of curiosity, what the heck IS a "legitimate" use for nuclear weapons?
 
Posted by Starship Millennium (Member # 822) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sol System:
Well, it's certainly grounds for war.

Well, if you had read my posts you'd know that it isn't "grounds for war."
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Out of curiosity, what the heck IS a "legitimate" use for nuclear weapons?

A use that results in a preferable outcome to that which would otherwise come about. Always. What qualifies as a preferable outcome, though, is a matter of some debate.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 
Hmmm, interesting.
So in your opinion, what countries on Earth (aside from the US) would have legitimate uses for nuclear weapons, and what would they be?
 
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
And why "aside from the US"?

Timo Saloniemi
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Depends on who can and will use them, whether as weapons or deterrents or doorstops, to bring about a better future than would have occured otherwise. Sadaam Housein does not intend to do this, nor could he if he intended to, because, well, who's he gonna deter or nuke that would lead to a preferable future?
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 
"Aside from the US" due to the fact that I wanted to eliminate personal bias, but more importantly to nail down some specifics. Evidently I failed.
Lets try this again.

Omega, what *specific* countries do you think have legitimate uses for nuclear weapons and what would they be? Be as specific as possible.
In your words, is it preferable to use nuclear weapons as "weapons or deterrents or doorstops"?
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
"A use that results in a preferable outcome to that which would otherwise come about."

And, of course, you decide what's "preferable", yes?

"I didn't join the Navy to fight in a war much less die in one."

Erm... So, what did you join for? Hoping to meet the Village People? I mean, the military fights wars. That's why it exists. When they told you would be boarding a ship, did you say "Hey, wait, no-one said anything about any boats..."?
 
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starship Millennium:
quote:
Originally posted by Sol System:
Well, it's certainly grounds for war.

Well, if you had read my posts you'd know that it isn't "grounds for war."
Must be that Amerrican sarcasm Omega's always going on about...
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Omega, what *specific* countries do you think have legitimate uses for nuclear weapons and what would they be? Be as specific as possible.

Countries whose judgement I trust, generally. That all depends on the military leadership, and who they answer to. I'd say the US, definitely, but that's just because I live here, and I know the system and the current government. Any country where the people have actual selection of the ones in charge of the military hierarchy, and where that government is actually stable, works too. Yet that country must still be willing to actually USE the weapons should it become obviously preferable, or they're worthless. I'd also say that any country with a running grudge against another, thus creating the possibility of using the nukes in an unnecessary situation, should be disqualified, i.e. India and Pakistan. You can also take the arsenal of freedom approach, where just the one country defends the rest, but you have to trust that one country, which can obviously be problematic.

In your words, is it preferable to use nuclear weapons as "weapons or deterrents or doorstops"?

Depends on the situation. I'd prefer that they only need to be used as deterrents, but if they need to be used as weapons to, say, prevent much higher death tolls in the long run, I'm all for that. Of course, you always have the problem of predicting the future, so whether it REALLY will lead to a better future is always just a best guess.

As for doorstops, well, depends on the door.

And, of course, you decide what's "preferable", yes?

Everyone decides what they consider to be preferable. I would argue that there are futures that are absolutely better than their alternative, because otherwise anything goes. You can be Macheavellian or you can have relative morality, but both at the same time sends everything straight to hell. Either way, though, you still have the problem with precognition.
 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
I think I'd trust Canada with nukes. And Australia and the UK. And France, because they'd only use them against iguanas and Greenpeace, even though only the latter deserves it.

Spain and Italy don't really have any enemies at the moment...

Switzerland...

Although I don't know if I'd TRUST Israel with nukes (what with the surrounding countries tempting them every second Thursday), I think a country surrounded by extremely hostile enemies might deserve a fighting chance...

Possibly a country which has openly given up its nukes, or renounced them entirely, like Ukraine or New Zealand...
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 
Excellent. We finally have actual examples to ponder.
So a quick synopsis would be:
Omega would trust any government that he trusts already, with the additional burden of nuclear weapons. This means the US, and by implication its allies, and perhaps any democratic government.

First would trust any government that hasn't and wouldn't use them in the first place. This parallels the nice rant in the Hitchhiker's Guide, paraphrased loosely... (The only people you can trust with power, are the people who don't seek it in the first place. etc. In short people are a problem) This does bring up an interesting problem with the US's initial acquisition of nuclear weapons, but we'll stick to the rules and ignore them for now.

Now, lets work with the examples given, and more importantly the omissions.

We'll discard the US as mentioned before, due to personal bias....and the UK as well for the same reason. (large numbers of forummites from both countries)

1) Now, India and Pakistan.
As far as I recall India does have a democratic government. Despite Omega's implication, I would think that a potential conflict would be quite important. Perhaps with India's 1 billion+ population, more important than the number of people at risk in the WW2 Pacific theatre.
As for necessary, we'll need more information, well Omega...please elaborate as to why India's democratic government might use nukes unnecessarily.

2) Omega's Running grudges idea vs. First's fighting chance idea for Israel: an interesting dilemna. Enough said.

3) Omissions:

Lets start with US allies and work ourselves outward:

a) Would we trust Japan with nuclear weapons? Democratic, US ally, seemingly no ongoing grudges...
b) Russia: A rather glaring ommision, perhaps due to a bit of post-cold war chauvinism. Democratic, US ally, ongoing grudge against Chechnya...rather minor, much in the vein of say the US's grudge against Cuba or Iraq. Do we trust them with nuclear weapons?
c) China: Not democratic, but no ongoing grudges, no invasions of foreign countries planned or on the horizon.

So, assume that these three countries did not in fact have nuclear weapons, and were trying to acquire them. Would these be "legitimate" acquisitions of nuclear weapons or not?
 
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
 
Of course, the big problem is that you're trying to determine legitimate users of nuclear weapons from an American viewpoint. Plenty of people in the current list of legitimate users would class the whole US v Iraq thing as a running grudge. . .
 
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
And would consider the Chechnya matter somewhat beyond the scope of the current US/Iraq grudge. Somewhere closer to the former US/Vietnam "grudge", probably.

Also, democratic election of the government does not necessarily extend to democratic control over nuclear weapons. The people in actual possession and ultimate control of these weapons are not elected, but nominated. Including the military and the immediate cabinet or advisory council of the elected leader. Were the elected leader to become incapacitated or otherwise inconvenient, any semblance of democratic control would evaporate immediately.

Timo Saloniemi
 
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
 
The way Ommey stated his argument you'd almost think he feels that nukes are good for the future health of the human race when he talks about preferable outcomes? What the hell is a preferable outcome?

Let me ask you Omega...(or for that matter anyone else) do you think that we'll ever have the courage to unmake something that should never have come into creation in the first place?
 
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
"Ommey" thinks people need to be nuked to live? cool.
 
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
 
Well, he's just passing time here until he's old enough to join the Klan, really. . .
 
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
 
At times like these it is hard NOT to have hard feelings againt the U.S. - I would say hate is too strong a word. But with such an idiotic government it's no wonder most of the world is sceptical towards American politics.

Bush wants to get rid of Saddam and get a hold on Iraq's oil reserves at any cost and he is prepared to do anything to achieve this goal. The ridiculous peformance of Colin Powell and his so called "evidence" is a perfect example. Bad luck for Bush & Co that they couldn't stop the reporter who found out that part of that "evidence" was information copied from a student's thesis of several years back.

And that's just one blatantly obvious lie U.S. administration made to achieve their goal. One in a whole line of lies that undermine any credibility Bush and his cronies might have had - if ever.

As for the Columbia accident - that doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the Iraq situation. It was a tragedy, sure, but one that could have happened at any time. Space travel is extremely dangerous and the Columbia disaster was not the first - and unfortunately certainly won't be the last. I don't believe the average Iraqi even knew about the disaster. After all they don't get a lot of news from the rest of the world - at least not uncensored news.
 
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
quote:
1) Now, India and Pakistan.
As far as I recall India does have a democratic government. Despite Omega's implication, I would think that a potential conflict would be quite important. Perhaps with India's 1 billion+ population, more important than the number of people at risk in the WW2 Pacific theatre.
As for necessary, we'll need more information, well Omega...please elaborate as to why India's democratic government might use nukes unnecessarily.

I think it's more that the Pakistanis might use nukes first that I'd be worried about. Because then the Indians would reply. With interest. And, yes, India is a democracy, in fact it's the largest (in terms of population) democracy in the world and all a British creation [Big Grin] .

As for the rest, I wouldn't trust anyone with nukes. But if we have to:

1)USA- I suppose kinda OK. Despite a worryingly macho tendancy among certain politicians [Wink] .
2)UK- Of course we should have them. Despite a somewhat incompetant streak among certain politicians.
3) France. Hmmm... don't really think so. Though they probably wouldn't use 'em.
4)India/Pakistan: Well India'd probably be OK and if either country's leaders are actually thinking then I doubt they'd be used. But if it came to all out war then I'm not entirely confidant...
5) China- Need I say anything? mind you, they haven't really got any reason to be using then. Yet.
6)Israel- You have to be bloody joking.
7)Russia: ought to be OK, they are democratic now.
 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
quote:
The ridiculous peformance of Colin Powell and his so called "evidence" is a perfect example. Bad luck for Bush & Co that they couldn't stop the reporter who found out that part of that "evidence" was information copied from a student's thesis of several years back.

Does not follow.
The document was a minor point, of little consequence to the overall presentation. It made no statements that could not and were not confirmed by other sources.
 
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
 
Which doesn't change the fact that the rest of the "evidence" was just as substantial/irrelevant.

I know one can say a lot of negative things about our current chancellor/government - and I would be the last to disagree, but for once I think Schroeder is right to stand by his word and be one of the very few brave enough statesmen to oppose the very questionable plans of an administration crazed with delusions of world domination.

Iraq is just the beginning. Nobody can honestly believe the U.S. would stop their so-called "war on terror" after that. Read between the lines of any of Bush's or Rumsfeld's speeches. If they really wanted to fight a war on terror, then they should fight in Northern Ireland, in Spain, in Israel and any other country where terror is a threat to the daily lives of the citizens.

Bush & Co can't honestly believe they could prevent a second 9-11 by throwing Saddam out of office. They didn't even manage to get rid of Osama (whom they had "nurtured" years ago - when it suited their needs at the time!!)
 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Austin Powers:
Which doesn't change the fact that the rest of the "evidence" was just as substantial/irrelevant.

Just remember, you asked for it...
From another discussion board (added emphasis mine)

quote:
For those that don't know me, my name's Yancy, and I live in Phoenix, AZ. I served in the US Army for eight years as a 96B (Intelligence Analyst). I served almost all my time in the Republic of Panama.

I was one of USARSOs (US Army South), primary political/economic analysts covering Panama, and was one of the primary analysts tasked with following terrorist organizations and their activities in Latin America (spent a lot of time covering Sendero Luminoso aka "Shining Path" as well as following Hezbollah activities in the region).

Anyway to my point, I was mainly writing because so many people had questioned the validity of the imagery photos Sec of State Powell had shown in his UN briefing.. "how do they know what that is???" "How do they know that's a decontamination truck, it looks like a grey blob??"

Well the reason they know is simple... training. Imagery analysts are highly trained individuals who pour over hundreds of photos at a light table (usually at the cost of their sight... they don't go blind, but staring into a light table for hours on end usually results in the analyst needing glasses later on). These people know what they are looking for. They know the equipment the "bad guys" use... So when an imagery analysts says "that's an NBC decon truck," they KNOW that's what it is.

One of the main reasons it's fairly easy to determine what Sadaam is using is that he almost exclusively uses Russian/Soviet equipment (with the exception of some French, and Chinese stuff)... Heck, his armies use old Russian military doctrine... He's a pretty easy nut to crack. So, knowing that he uses primarily Soviet-era euipment, the analyst looks at the image and says,"what kind of Soviet vehicle configuration does this truck match?" Well, it could be the old Zil-131 or a Ural 375. Both trucks have a certain profile when configured for use in NBC decon... if someone put a gun to my head I'd guess the Ural 375 since the Zil is so antiquated.

Anyway, that's why these guys know what they're doing.. they know what they're looking for.

quote:
Thank you First of Two, thank you for some common sense.

One other thing to keep in mind too is that no one, and I mean NO ONE would ever conduct an intelligence briefing based soley on one piece of information (a Satellite photo), or one aspect of intelligence collection (i.e., SIGINT -Signals Intelligence-, COMINT -Communications Intelligence-, ELINT -Electronics Intelligence-, or HUMINT -Human Intelligence-).

I have sat through or conducted hundreds of briefings for Senior Staff level personnel, and I have yet to meet any analyst who would, excuse the French, "hang their dick out in the wind" on a hunch, or guess... You need to have multiple sources to back up you analysis.

I could tell you all sorts of stories about tracking down bad guys, or monitoring terrorist groups... and never once did I tell my DCSINT (Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence) or the USARSO Commander... "well, it kind of looks like this, and I guess they will do this." No, I always had facts to back up my assertions, and historical precedence to back up my analysis. I KNEW what I was talking about, and my commanders had the utmost faith in me.

I'm not trying to brag or boast, but most PFCs (which is what I was two monthes after I got to Panama) don't brief Senior staff, I was... and you know what I found out??? I wasn't the only one... there are a ton of very talented analysts in the Army and they know what they are doing, and what they are talking about.

Sorry, given the choice of trusting the analysis of a U.S. Army Imagery analyst, or the "best guesses" of some Frech Foreign Ministry official... I'll take the Amry guy every time.

Yancey

quote:
HOAH! I've briefed guys all the way up to the reprobate that was in NCA at the time (on Kashmir, of all thngs), and as Yancy pointed out, we do not make intel reports based off one bit of data. No one in authority is going to stick their neck out on a guess; they're too fond of their careers.

The sat images, the intercepts -- they're all great, but they only give you 'warnings and indicators'. The solid intel is done by some brave but scared guy, in country, who could be burned at a moment's notice if a particular bit of intelligence is released. Our 'flawed' intelligence in Bosnia and other missions through the '80s/90s were due to massive cutbacks in HUMINT (the guys on the ground) and thepolicymakers screwing up by not listening to what we tell them. It's been improving over the past couple of years as we've turned our focus back toward HUMINT to augment SIGINT and PHOTINT.

In Iraq, it's always been the case that our best data coes from some brave but terrified guy (usually a native) hanging it all out to get us the truth. We slip up with who gets the raw data, this guy dies.

quote:
Yeah qerlin. guys on the ground a really hanging it all out for us. Just one bit of info I found very funny... I was watching Powell's briefing to the Senate Intelligence commitee on Thursday. Well, good old Sen Joe Biden chimes in about Powell's assertion that AL Qaeda operatives were working out of northern Iraq. Well, Biden presses Powell on the issue and ask (I'm paraphrasing): "If we know Al-Qaeda is operating facilities in northern Iraq, why don't we simply send in Special Forces to take them out???"

Powell's response "I'd like to answer that quenstion, but it must be in private." Okay, lets analyze for a sec... Joe, the reason I can't tell you is that we have an operative in that cell, or at the very least Special Ops guys in the area are monitoring their every step... My guess is we have a Kurdish operative in the cell. More than likely, a lot of the info that resulted in us increasing our threat level to "High" came from monitoring this group. Consequently Joe, we cannot afford to take out this cell just yet, it's probably providing us some of the best intel we have on Al-Qaeda.

BTW, check out these articles from the New York Post and New Yorker:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/o...nists/68525.htm

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030210fa_fact

And just in case the more paranoia-laden among you think I made this all up, here's a link to the thread -- you can ask them yourselves.

http://forum.trek-rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6816&perpage=15&pagenumber=8
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
The way Ommey stated his argument you'd almost think he feels that nukes are good for the future health of the human race when he talks about preferable outcomes?

Well, that depends on who you're nuking, now doesn't it? All nukes are is a really really efficient way of killing people, and much as I don't like it, some people do need to die on occasion.

do you think that we'll ever have the courage to unmake something that should never have come into creation in the first place?

It has nothing to do with courage, Daryus. So long as the information exists, and it always will, someone will try to use it. It's the same idea behind destroying all guns: you can't get 'em all, and even if you did, people can build more.

[Omega] thinks people need to be nuked to live? cool.

I didn't say anything remotely like that.
 
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
"and much as I don't like it, some people do need to die on occasion."

Wow.
 
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
 
Well FOT you are making my point of more inspections quite well, Thank you. From the discussions you've had with your little internet friend, it shows that the US evidence has got to be checked out on the ground to be validated. So again good reason to have inspections, poor reason to go in killing a bunch of Iraqi civilians.
And it still doesn't answer why this evidence was not given to the inspectors in the first place, so they could do their jobs. You know, like the famous resolution that the US admin. keeps bandying about.
 
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
Because it's fun to quote things at length, especially stuff that landed in my mailbox a few minutes ago forwarded from my Media Studies prof:
quote:

Subject: A Failure of Skepticism in Powell Coverage


FAIR
(Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting)

MEDIA ADVISORY:
A Failure of Skepticism in Powell Coverage
Disproof of previous claims underlines need for scrutiny

February 10, 2003


In reporting on Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5 presentation to the United Nations Security Council, many journalists treated
allegations made by Powell as though they were facts. Reporters at several major outlets neglected to observe the journalistic rule of
prefacing unverified assertions with words like "claimed" or "alleged."

This is of particular concern given that over the last several months, many Bush administration claims about alleged Iraqi weapons facilities
have failed to hold up to inspection. In many cases, the failed claims-- like Powell's claims at the U.N.-- have cited U.S. and British
intelligence sources and have included satellite photos as evidence.

---

In its report on Powell's presentation, the New York Daily News (2/6/03) accepted his evidence at face value: "To buttress his arguments, Powell
showed satellite photos of Iraqi weapons sites and played several audiotapes intercepted by U.S. electronic eavesdroppers. The most dramatic featured an Iraqi Army colonel in the 2nd Republican Guards Corps ordering a captain to sanitize communications." The Daily News gave no
indication that it had independent confirmation that the photos were indeed of weapons sites, or that individuals on the tapes were in fact who
Powell said they were.

In Andrea Mitchell's report on NBC Nightly News (2/5/03), Powell's allegations became actual capabilities of the Iraqi military: "Powell
played a tape of a Mirage jet retrofitted to spray simulated anthrax, and a model of Iraq's unmanned drones, capable of spraying chemical or germ weapons within a radius of at least 550 miles."

Dan Rather, introducing an interview with Powell (60 Minutes II, 2/5/03), shifted from reporting allegations to describing allegations as facts:
"Holding a vial of anthrax-like powder, Powell said Saddam might have tens of thousands of liters of anthrax. He showed how Iraqi jets could spray that anthrax and how mobile laboratories are being used to concoct new
weapons." The anthrax supply is appropriately attributed as a claim by Powell, but the mobile laboratories were something that Powell "showed" to be actually operating.

Commentator William Schneider on CNN Live Today (2/6/03) dismissed the possibility that Powell could be doubted: "No one disputes the findings
Powell presented at the U.N. that Iraq is essentially guilty of failing to disarm." When CNN's Paula Zahn (2/5/03) interviewed Jamie Rubin, former State Department spokesperson, she prefaced a discussion of Iraq's response to Powell's speech thusly: "You've got to understand that most Americans watching this were either probably laughing out loud or got sick to their stomach. Which was it for you?"

--

Journalists should always be wary of implying unquestioning faith in official assertions; recent history is full of official claims based on
satellite and other intelligence data that later turned out to be false or dubious. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the first Bush administration rallied support for sending troops to Saudi Arabia by asserting that classified satellite photos showed the Iraqi army mobilizing on the Saudi border. This claim was later discredited when the St. Petersburg Times
obtained commercial satellite photos showing no such build-up (Second Front, John R. MacArthur). The Clinton administration justified a cruise
missile attack on the Sudan by saying that intelligence showed that the target was a chemical weapons factory; later investigation showed it to be a pharmaceutical factory (London Independent, 5/4/99).

In the present instance, journalists have a responsibility to put U.S. intelligence claims in context by pointing out that a number of
allegations recently made by the current administration have already been debunked. Among them:

* Following a CIA warning in October that commercial satellite photos showed Iraq was "reconstituting" its clandestine nuclear weapons program at Al Tuwaitha, a former nuclear weapons complex, George W. Bush told a
Cincinnati audience on October 7 (New York Times, 10/8/02): "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have
been part of his nuclear program in the past."

When inspectors returned to Iraq, however, they visited the Al Tuwaitha site and found no evidence to support Bush's claim. "Since December 4 inspectors from [Mohamed] ElBaradei's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have scrutinized that vast complex almost a dozen times, and reported no violations," according to an Associated Press report (1/18/03).

* In September and October U.S. officials charged that conclusive evidence existed that Iraq was preparing to resume manufacturing banned ballistic
missiles at several sites. In one such report the CIA said "the only plausible explanation" for a new structure at the Al Rafah missile test
site was that Iraqis were developing banned long-range missiles (Associated Press, 1/18/03). But CIA suggestions that facilities at Al Rafah, in addition to sites at Al Mutasim and Al Mamoun, were being used to build prohibited missile systems were found to be baseless when U.N.
inspectors repeatedly visited each site (Los Angeles Times, 1/26/03).

* British and U.S. intelligence officials said new building at Al-Qaim, a former uranium refinery in Iraq's western desert, suggested renewed Iraqi development of nuclear weapons. But an extensive survey by U.N. inspectors in December reported no violations (Associated Press, 1/18/03).

* Last fall the CIA warned that "key aspects of Iraq's offensive [biological weapons] program are active and most elements are more advanced and larger" than they were pre-1990, citing as evidence renewed building at several facilities such as the Al Dawrah Vaccine Facility, the
Amiriyah Serum and Vaccine Institute, and the Fallujah III Castor Oil Production Plant. By mid-January, inspectors had visited all the sites
many times over. No evidence was found that the facilities were being used to manufacture banned weapons (Los Angeles Times, 1/26/03).

The Associated Press concluded in its January 18 analysis: "In almost two months of surprise visits across Iraq, U.N. arms monitors have inspected 13 sites identified by U.S. and British intelligence agencies as major 'facilities of concern,' and reported no signs of revived weapons
building."

Regarding the number of allegations made by the Bush and Blair governments that have washed out on inspection, former U.N. weapons inspector Hans von Sponeck told the British newspaper The Mirror (2/6/03) following Powell's U.N. presentation:

"The inspectors have found nothing which was in the Bush and Blair dossiers of last September. What happened to them? They are totally embarrassed by them. I have seen facilities in pieces in Iraq which U.S. intelligence reports say are dangerous.

"The Institute of Strategic Studies referred to the Al Fallujah Three castor oil production unit and the Al Dora foot and mouth center as
'facilities of concern.' In 2002 I saw them and they were destroyed, there was nothing. All that was left were shells of buildings. This is a
classic example of manipulating allegations, allegations being converted into facts."

Responsible journalists should avoid playing a part in such a conversion by making a clear distinction between what has been alleged by the U.S. government and what has been independently verified.



 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
While this may seem reasonable, there is something to consider that I clearly must reiterate.

If any countries's intelligence agencies had any good doubts about what Powell said our photo experts said was in the photos, especially the agencies of Russia, Germany, France, and China, who would do just about anything to thwart the US at this juncture, wouldn't you expect them to say so?

The continuing silence from that sector implies far more than does anything else.
 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
quote:
Thank you. From the discussions you've had with your little internet friend, it shows that the US evidence has got to be checked out on the ground to be validated.
If you go back and reread, you'll notice that he is saying that he has no doubt that all these claims HAVE been validated by more than one source. Before they even got to Powell.

Myself, I have no doubt that anything Hussein can hide from a group of inspectors, he can hide from a bigger group. Indeed, this past group has given him time to do so, as well as time to study how they do things, the better to thwart them with.

Wouldn't have to do it again if it'd been done right the first time... except you'd never have gotten Iraq to go along with it.
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
"All nukes are is a really really efficient way of killing people..."

Yes, there are a very very efficient way of killing people indiscriminantly and en masse. They are, however, a very very inefficient way of killing any specific people.
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Well, not necessarily. Underground bunkers would also be targets against which nukes could be an appropriate weapon. Nor is killing a bunch of people necessarily a bad thing (defined as something that would lead to an outcome less preferable than would have occured without the nuke). All depends on the situation, but under any, they're extremely specialized weapons that still have a place on occasion.
 
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Nor is killing a bunch of people necessarily a bad thing.

That's twice he's said it now, and I'm still amazed.
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
"Nor is killing a bunch of people necessarily a bad thing..."

Be one of them.
 
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
 
Originally posted by Grokca:
quote:
Well FOT you are making my point of more inspections quite well, Thank you. From the discussions you've had with your little internet friend, it shows that the US evidence has got to be checked out on the ground to be validated. So again good reason to have inspections, poor reason to go in killing a bunch of Iraqi civilians.
And it still doesn't answer why this evidence was not given to the inspectors in the first place, so they could do their jobs. You know, like the famous resolution that the US admin. keeps bandying about.

Exactly. If the U.S. believe in their evidence, then they should send the inspectors to validate their (proposed) findings - and cooperate with the inspectors from the start, not withhold apparently crucial information for so long. Why the delay if it's so important??

By the way who says the satellite images haven't been tampered with. Any Photoshop buff could do the trick. By which I don't want to imply that this HAS happened - I just want to make you think about the possibility. After all, faking evidence to use it as a pretext for war has happened quite frequently in the history of warfare.

Originally posted by First of Two:
quote:
If any countries's intelligence agencies had any good doubts about what Powell said our photo experts said was in the photos, especially the agencies of Russia, Germany, France, and China, who would do just about anything to thwart the US at this juncture, wouldn't you expect them to say so?
They did say what everybody knew. That the evidence presented didn't reveal anything new or unknown up to now. And they insisted on giving the inspectors more time for thorough research. War doesn't solve the problem - but it will create a lot of new ones!

Originally posted by TSN:
quote:
Yes, there are a very very efficient way of killing people indiscriminantly and en masse. They are, however, a very very inefficient way of killing any specific people.
That's an important point. Nukes should NEVER be used - no matter what the circumstance. They shouldn't have been invented at all, but unfortunately that mistake can't be undone. But certainly they shouldn't be used in this conflict either. Talk about opening Pandora'a Box!! When the U.S. used nukes in WW2 on Japan, the situation was different. They were the only ones who had that weapon. If the U.S. used nukes nowadays, then what would stop say North Korea, Pakistan, India, Russia, China, ... from saying "Hey if you can, why can't we?".
Armageddon would be just a small step away, doesn't anyone in the higher ranks sense that?

WHY ON EARTH ARE THE U.S. SO KEEN ON GOING TO WAR???

Give me some SENSIBLE reasons - not the usual "we must bomb Iraq to the stone-age to show them their place in the world for supporting Saddam for so long"!

Oh and one other thing: if the U.S. want to get rid of countries that proliferate weapons of mass destruction, then they should start by going to war against themselves - before they turn to other nations. Hypocrits!
 
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
 
But they need them to defend liberty, because they are so vulnerable without them. Or somesuch.
 
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
 
quote:
If you go back and reread, you'll notice that he is saying that he has no doubt that all these claims HAVE been validated by more than one source. Before they even got to Powell.

You mean like the list Tom presented or that part of the claims came from a grad student. Or was it the parts that Dr. Blix has already refuted.
 
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
"...some people do need to die on occasion..."

Set an example for the rest of humanity and start with yourself.

[ February 11, 2003, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: E. Cartman ]
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Nor is killing a bunch of people necessarily a bad thing.

That's twice he's said it now, and I'm still amazed.
You should watch the movie "Fail Safe" some time.

Nukes should NEVER be used - no matter what the circumstance.

That's very silly. You shouldn't say "no matter the circumstance" unless you've considered every conceivable circumstance, which you haven't, or you wouldn't have said that.

not the usual "we must bomb Iraq to the stone-age to show them their place in the world for supporting Saddam for so long"!

Which is not what ANYONE has said or advocated. Aside from the relatively small portion of the population that works in Sadaam's military and is still dumb enough to resist, the vast majority of the people in Iraq would be HELPED by our removal of Housein from power.

quote:
Originally posted by TSN:
"Nor is killing a bunch of people necessarily a bad thing..."

Be one of them.

Or here's an idea: how about when we disagree with people, we say WHY, instead of making some sort of pseudo-witty comments! Wouldn't that be GREAT!?
 
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
 
Because your pseudo-arguments don't even stretch to making pseudo-sense, so why justify them by trying to counter the nonsense you spew? I mean, Fail Safe? THAT'S your justification? Both filmed versions are terrific, and it's certainly a step upward from your usual Clancy Fantasies - or, if you will, Clantacies - but I wouldn't base a credible foreign policy on them.
 
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
Well, I suppose they have to use something Dubya has a chance of understanding.

Targeting Iraq will probably have only minimal effect on the Wah on Terrah(TM). If the weapons inspectors are given more time and help by US and other intelligance angencies then it is probable they would find these WMDs that supposedly exist. they can then didarm Saddam peacefully. These are probably not grounds for war.
However, Saddam is a brutal dictator and should IMO be taken out. Equally, I'm not at all certain that the Iraqis won't be able to hide any WMD they have. Very difficult decision.
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Because your pseudo-arguments don't even stretch to making pseudo-sense, so why justify them by trying to counter the nonsense you spew? I mean, Fail Safe? THAT'S your justification?

No, my justification is exactly what I said when this came up. If you're going to be a worthless crap-monger, Lee, you can at least keep your insults from coloring you illiterate.

If the weapons inspectors are given more time and help by US and other intelligance angencies then it is probable they would find these WMDs that supposedly exist. they can then didarm Saddam peacefully.

The inspectors can do this how? It isn't some friendly game of hide and seek. "Oh, darn, you found my toys. Oh, well. I guess that means is my turn to inspect YOUR country for weapons." Why in the world do you think he'd give this stuff up voluntarily, found or not?

These are probably not grounds for war.

We were in a position to wipe him out ten years ago. We agreed not to, under certain conditions. He's broken those conditions. If that's not grounds for war...
 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Clantacies is going right in the dictionary.
 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
How to defeat UN inspections: A Primer for Iraqi Intelligence trainees.

Step 1. Bug Inspector headquarters, vehicles, meeting places, etc.

Step 2. Listen in and find out where they're planning to go.

Step 3. Clean the place out in advance.

Step 4. Obfuscate any leftovers by claiming they're "obsolete" (never mind that warheads and chemical weapons aren't prone to spoilage and don't have 'use by' dates)

Appendix: If they increase the number of inspectors, just increase the number of bugs and surveilance staff by an equal proportion. We have guys to spare. Repeat steps 2-4 as needed.
 
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
 
Since we are sending some stuff to Turkey, maybe we can slip a U2 in and fly over and take a few pictures.
 
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
 
Can't remember if I've added this to the flaming before, but if I did, it was still funny the second time. [Smile]

Mark
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Rob: The inspectors know they're bugged. Therefore, they avoid saying things that would compromise their mission. They're not stupid, you know.

Kosh: What "slip"ping? Iraq has stopped blocking spy planes.
 
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
 
quote:
How to defeat UN inspections: A Primer for Iraqi Intelligence trainees.

Step 1. Bug Inspector headquarters, vehicles, meeting places, etc.

Step 2. Listen in and find out where they're planning to go.

Step 3. Clean the place out in advance.

Step 4. Obfuscate any leftovers by claiming they're "obsolete" (never mind that warheads and chemical weapons aren't prone to spoilage and don't have 'use by' dates)

Appendix: If they increase the number of inspectors, just increase the number of bugs and surveilance staff by an equal proportion. We have guys to spare. Repeat steps 2-4 as needed.

I know what could go along way to helping this situation. How about the US give the inspectors the intelligence the need to get the job done. You cannot destroy a factory overnight, or move a nuclear facility after saying "Hey look over there." then moving it. These things take time and according to Mr. Powell they have evidence of it being done, but they don't seem to think it is important to tell the inspectors.
 
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
quote:
Aside from the relatively small portion of the population that works in Sadaam's military and is still dumb enough to resist, the vast majority of the people in Iraq would be HELPED by our removal of Housein from power.
I see, the people of Iraq are going to come out into the streets, lay down their arms and welcome the United States as heros?

The average person in Iraq is not going to defend their home and community from invasion because....

Basicly because you folks who are tring to justify war with Iraq at by using almost any excuse seem to have deluded yourselves into not only thinking that this war will not cost much money, we can have war and tax cuts at the same time, but apparently you seem to think now only a few people are going to oppose the United States.

House to house fighting made painless by ignorance.
 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grokca:
I know what could go along way to helping this situation. How about the US give the inspectors the intelligence the need to get the job done. You cannot destroy a factory overnight, or move a nuclear facility after saying "Hey look over there." then moving it. These things take time and according to Mr. Powell they have evidence of it being done, but they don't seem to think it is important to tell the inspectors.

How do you get this information TO the inspectors, without the Iraqis getting wind of it? Have we developed telepathic agents that I'm not aware of?

Second, how do the inspectors communicate this knowledge to each other but keep it from their "handlers" (Think they're unescorted? Ha!) without giving things away? (I don't recall It being said that the inspectors were being given Intelligence training to avoid making slips. These are diplomats, not spies (unless some of them have been compromised / turned, in which case it's even MORE futile.)
 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay the Obscure:
The average person in Iraq is not going to defend their home and community from invasion because....

Because most of them privately hate their government even more than you hate yours.

"But the TV crews show them at the pro-Saddam rallies!"

Yes, crowds of people with the soldiers keeping them there kept carefully out of frame.

Like the USSR parading the same tanks and missiles around Red Square a half-dozen times to make the western media think they had many more weapons than they did.
 
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
 
quote:
These are diplomats,
Actually they are trained inspectors. That come mostly from the fields they are supposed to be inspecting in.
And I think I would take Dr. Blix's word on this rather than your armchair spyguy opinion.

quote:
How do you get this information TO the inspectors, without the Iraqis getting wind of it? Have we developed telepathic agents that I'm not aware of?

Wow an armchair spyguy who hasn't heard of secure communications. Does you armed forces still anounce to your enemies your postions in the field or have they found a way around that yet?
 
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
quote:
Because most of them privately hate their government even more than you hate yours.
This from the poster boy for Anti-Big Brother (oh, unless its a Republican big brother reality, in which case Rob fears the government so much he doesn't even feel he has the freedom to protest it and vow to die with his Sig-Sauer in hand, as he did when Clinton was in office. But that's because Rob knows that liberals value freedom, and conservatives only pay it lip service).
 
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
I think George W. Bush will go down as the top 1 or 2 worst presidents the United States has had. Ever.

Now you have proof that I hate my government.

If, on the other hand, I loathed Bill Clinton, I would love America and all that it stands for.

I guess that's right-wing mental gymnastics for you.

I fail to see the connection between the Soviet military and any indication that the USSR wanted to be invaded by the United States, like you apparently assume the vast "silent majority" Iraqi people apparently want, and that the Soviet people, unlike the Iraqi people, would not have acted in opposition to such and invasion.
 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grokca:
quote:
These are diplomats,
Actually they are trained inspectors. That come mostly from the fields they are supposed to be inspecting in.
And I think I would take Dr. Blix's word on this rather than your armchair spyguy opinion.

I'll buy that they are indeed trained at inspecting, within their particular fields. I do not buy that they are trained in espionage procedures.
Inspectors still does not = intelligence experts

quote:
Wow an armchair spyguy who hasn't heard of secure communications. Does you armed forces still anounce to your enemies your postions in the field or have they found a way around that yet?
I don't recall any country that's in the practice of sharing its procedures for secure communications with a group of people not their own countrymen. IIRC, that would be considered "stupid."

And you didn't answer the second half of the question. I suppose Blix talks to the other inspectors via a series of elaborate dance steps?

"Well, Luis, the US says we should visit Al-Zafir tomorrow. *Makes gesture towards map, pointing at Al-Husan* That's AL-ZAFIR."

Luis *writes down "Al-Zafir"

"No no, NO." *gestures again at Al-Husan* "AL-ZAFIR!"

"So I should tell the driver we're going to Al-Zafir?"

"No, tell HIM we're going to AL ZAFIR."

"I think he's an Iraqi agent."

"F***! How are we going to get to AL ZAFIR, if we have to tell everyone we're going to Al Zafir?"
 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay the Obscure:
I fail to see the connection between the Soviet military and any indication that the USSR wanted to be invaded by the United States, like you apparently assume the vast "silent majority" Iraqi people apparently want, and that the Soviet people, unlike the Iraqi people, would not have acted in opposition to such and invasion.

That's because you are looking off into space while I'm trying to show you something six inches from your nose. I can't tell whether you're doing it intentionally or not. Since you're fairly smart, I ham forced to suspect that you're doing it on purpose.

The point has absolutely nothing to do with the people of the USSR. It has to do with the "image" that the USSR was able to present, with the help of a few well-placed lies and misdirections, and some folks running the cameras who wanted to show a strong USSR.

The point is, that the "image" you have of the Iraqi street, as is presented by the cameras, is not necessarily the truth. Despite the cliche, the cameras can lie. Especially cameras inside Iraq.
 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Snay:
quote:
Because most of them privately hate their government even more than you hate yours.
This from the poster boy for Anti-Big Brother (oh, unless its a Republican big brother reality, in which case Rob fears the government so much he doesn't even feel he has the freedom to protest it and . But that's because Rob knows that liberals value freedom, and conservatives only pay it lip service).
Okay, I should have said "current" government.

quote:
vow to die with his Sig-Sauer in hand, as he did when Clinton was in office
Nope, never did that. More Snayslander. Or is it libel? I don't know the legal term when it's in non-print text.
 
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
quote:
I can't tell whether you're doing it intentionally or not. Since you're fairly smart, I ham forced to suspect that you're doing it on purpose.

Thank you. Except for the ham part, I could say the same thing about you.

Thing is, I just do not understand why you appear to think that an invasion of Iraq would be easy or not bring about a huge loss of life on both sides.

We're talking about invading another country here. I do know that community and home is very important to people all around the world. Important enought to fight for as an end unto itself.

Invading another country means taking cities and towns and controling them. That means house to house and street to street fighting, which can be accomplished quite well even with a relatively small number of people, especially if those people are fighting for homes and family or are willing to die for their cause.

Controling another country to bring about changes you feel desirable means long term commitment of troops, material, money and time. If we look at Afghanistan as an example of any of this, the Mr. Bush has failed in all these respects.
 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
On that note, and for your consideration: U.S. Plans for Two-Year Occupation of Iraq
quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. officials on Tuesday laid out plans for a two-year military occupation of Iraq in the event of an invasion and told wary senators that "enormous uncertainties" made it impossible to say whether troops might stay even longer or how much it would all cost.

 
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay the Obscure:
Controling another country to bring about changes you feel desirable means long term commitment of troops, material, money and time. If we look at Afghanistan as an example of any of this, the Mr. Bush has failed in all these respects.

Yes... If I'm not mistaken the US military occupation of Japan lasted SEVEN YEARS... as in, the Japanese surrendered in late 1945, and the US troops didn't turn over control to a civilian government unti 1952!

I don't recall the specific dates for the occupation of Germany, but I'm pretty sure it lasted about as long.

The general public these days has no idea what is required of these campaigns -- and I'm worried that our leaders don't really know, either.
 
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
 
FOT I guess you either didn't read this or chose to ignore it.

quote:
He also contested the theory that the Iraqis knew in advance what sites were to be inspected. He added that they expected to be bugged "by several nations" and took great care not to say anything Iraqis could overhear.


I am also going to assume you know what a map is, you did work in a library. So, you just point at the place on the map you are going to go to tomorrow and say " Tomorrow we are going here." Or maybe you know what a computer is, I'm going to assume that to as you post on here. Then you just send a file to each other(you know what a file is, eh) and it has the iterary on it for the next week. You can have one guy planning and send the file to each other through a closed network.
Or I guess they could do the circle jerk dance you seem so fond of.

And lastly you don't think that the inspection team has it's own secure communications? You really got to get out of that AV room once and a while. The world is changing while you are stuck in there.
 
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
 
MinutiaeMan, the situation in Germany 1945 was completely different than the one in Iraq today.

Germans in 1945 hated the dictator who had ruined their country. The great majority saw the U.S. forces as former enemies turned liberators. Over the years the sentiments grew even more pro-America.
I don't think the Iraqis would react like that in any way. They didn't suffer a terrible six-year war their dictator had started in a mad conquest for territory and power.
I think in their eyes the U.S. are just agressors who want to take over their country and its oil reserves.

Why should the Iraqis feel glad for a U.S. invasion??
 
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
The Patriot Act? C'mon. You have LESS freedom then when Clinton was in office, that's because liberals love freedom, and conservatives (for the most part) hate freedom. I'll give you that you're not a typical conservative, but most can't stand non-Christians, non-whites, and non-heterosexuals, and it's a trend I see no conservative leaders (with the exception of some lip service) bucking.
 
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
quote:
I don't think the Iraqis would react like that in any way. They didn't suffer a terrible six-year war their dictator had started in a mad conquest for territory and power.
I think in their eyes the U.S. are just agressors who want to take over their country and its oil reserves.

Why should the Iraqis feel glad for a U.S. invasion??

Well, in this case, the US is the country which gave weapons to Saddam to keep him in power. The US is the country which did nothing when Saddam bombed and massacred his own citizens with the "weapons of mass destruction" our hypocritical conservative leaders now harp on with the bullshit "for the good of the world" that clearly they don't give a shit about. Even when the US went to war with Iraq, we left Saddam in power, gave Saddam the ability to put down the insurrection in the north of the country (despite our promises for support), and were responsible for an embargo which starved hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for a dozen years.

Yeah, the Iraqi people have a lot to love the United States for. I think, "in this case", that the Iraqi people view the U.S. as a hipocritical nation which will install a new dictator in Hussein's place if elections aren't likely to favor the west.
 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
quote:
I don't think the Iraqis would react like that in any way. They didn't suffer a terrible six-year war their dictator had started in a mad conquest for territory and power.

That's exactly what the Iran-Iraq war was... except it was a 10 year war.

quote:
Well, in this case, the US is the country which gave weapons to Saddam to keep him in power. The US is the country which did nothing when Saddam bombed and massacred his own citizens with the "weapons of mass destruction" our hypocritical conservative leaders now harp on with the bullshit "for the good of the world" that clearly they don't give a shit about. Even when the US went to war with Iraq, we left Saddam in power, gave Saddam the ability to put down the insurrection in the north of the country (despite our promises for support), and were responsible for an embargo which starved hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for a dozen years.

Hey Snay, are you ever going to mention the other dozen or so countries which sold/gave arms to Iraq? Or are you going to keep up this charade?

I mean, there's very little equipment now in the Iraqi military which could be considered US material. The vast majority of it is Russian or French.

Are you going to list the countries which DID do something when Saddam was massacring his own people?

Are you going to name the countries who asked the US to leave Hussein in power? (Here's a hint: one speaks French, one speaks French and English, and the last is the country we were launching most of the attacks from)

And are you going to mention that there was more than enough money flowing into Iraq under the oil-for-food / medicine program to take care of the Iraqis, only it got diverted into Saddam's palace-building program (and who knows what else).

You're too smart to resort to such blatant misrepresentation of the facts.
 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
quote:
So, you just point at the place on the map you are going to go to tomorrow and say " Tomorrow we are going here."
And the little hidden camera anybody can buy on the internet sees you.

quote:
Or maybe you know what a computer is, I'm going to assume that to as you post on here. Then you just send a file to each other(you know what a file is, eh) and it has the iterary on it for the next week. You can have one guy planning and send the file to each other through a closed network.
And this closed network is set up and monitored by who? (I'll admit I don't know too much about this part, but I assume that the information gets from one computer to another via SOME kind of linkage device. Which can be made impossible to intercept how?)

quote:
And lastly you don't think that the inspection team has it's own secure communications? You really got to get out of that AV room once and a while. The world is changing while you are stuck in there.

Frankly, I don't think there is such a thing as "secure" communications. Someone would have to explain to me an "unbreakable" communications system.
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
"So, you just point at the place on the map you are going to go to tomorrow and say ' Tomorrow we are going here.'"

"And the little hidden camera anybody can buy on the internet sees you."

So you get a flashlight, throw a blanket over your heads, and write down what you want to say to each other. If you aren't speaking, and you aren't visible to the cameras, you can't be bugged. Sure, you'd look silly, but it would work.
 
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
 
quote:
but I assume that the information gets from one computer to another via SOME kind of linkage device.
Yes it is called cat5, networking wire. You have it 3 feet long and you plug the computers together and transfer files to each other.


quote:
Frankly, I don't think there is such a thing as "secure" communications. Someone would have to explain to me an "unbreakable" communications system.

Of course nothing is completely secure, I think you are just caught and trying to confuse the issue, but it can be made hard enough to crack and random enough that they could get info back and forth. Have you never used online banking or bought anything from ebay or such. This is using 128 bit encoding, very hard to crack. I am sure if this is the main consumer encoding method then they could come up with something better than that.
As for camera spying on them. jeez there are a lot of methods to counteract that, you are just not thinking or as I said before, caught and trying not admit you never thought your initial statements through.
I will not try to teach you anymore security methods, next time, late at night in the AV room try watching a James Bond movie, instead of animal porn.
 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
quote:
a James Bond movie
Surely the most accurate depiction of international espionage available.
 
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a James Bond movie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surely the most accurate depiction of international espionage available.

Closer to reality then FOT seems to be.
 


© 1999-2008 Solareclipse Network.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3