Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > How is this war supposed to end terorism?

How is this war supposed to end terorism? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2003, 08:54 PM
 
Originally posted by finboy:
Welcome to the elite represented in my ignore list. Thanks for the admiration of my tool, though.
Have you run out of cash to pay the little boys who work at the motel for their services, that you now need Simon's admiration of specific parts of your anatomy?
weird wabbit
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2003, 08:58 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I seem to recall someone else also refusing. Hmmm. Let's guess what his name is. He's short, has a beard, has several hundred million stashed away in Switzerland . . .
Billy Gibbons?
weird wabbit
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 02:25 AM
 
Originally posted by Mastrap:
The US and the UK government as well as the UN have repeatedly stated that there is no way to prove that SH owns WMD.

If you have access to better sources than the US government I'd be delighted to know about them.
Look at some pre-1998 UN weapons inspection reports. Plenty of WMD are documented.

Blix said was that there was no way to verify that Iraq had indeed destroyed these weapons on their own while inspectors were shut out of Iraq for 4+ years.

As for better sources of intelligence, the US has by far and away the best intelligence agencies. To claim otherwise only proves your deluded perceptions.
     
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 03:14 AM
 
Originally posted by spacefreak:
Look at some pre-1998 UN weapons inspection reports. Plenty of WMD are documented.

Blix said was that there was no way to verify that Iraq had indeed destroyed these weapons on their own while inspectors were shut out of Iraq for 4+ years.

As for better sources of intelligence, the US has by far and away the best intelligence agencies. To claim otherwise only proves your deluded perceptions.

Let me explain to you how this internet message board lark is supposed to work:

1. Read

2. Comprehend

3. Post a reply

You can of course do the above in any order you like, this will somewhat reduce your credibility.



This out of the way, I was quoting the US intelligence services, not denouncing them. Better luck next time.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 05:01 AM
 
Originally posted by simonjames:
Finboy - you're a tool

what were the nationalities of the 9/11 terrorists?

Iraqi? No

Saudi - Yes
You aren't one of those people who think just because the terrorists where Saudi, automatically Saddam had nothing to do, or helped support such actions are you?

Because that kind of logic just doesn't pan out.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 05:03 AM
 
Originally posted by simonjames:
woo hoo - I've been added to finboy's ignore list. Now I won't get any juvenile responses to my posts - this ignore list is friggin excellent!!

Now how do I get added to Spliff's and Zimp's and ......
Why would I want to add you to my ignore list

[b]
Originally posted by Mastrap:
Let me explain to you how this internet message board lark is supposed to work:

1. Read

2. Comprehend

3. Post a reply

Now where have I heard that before...

     
gadster
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 09:33 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Why would I want to add you to my ignore list


Now where have I heard that before...

Most probably the same place you hear everything else, when your ear is too close to your rector's anus. JK
e-gads
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 09:38 AM
 
Originally posted by gadster:
Most probably the same place you hear everything else, when your ear is too close to your rector's anus. JK
Face Ache would have been proud of you.

weird wabbit
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 09:41 AM
 
Originally posted by spacefreak:
Look at some pre-1998 UN weapons inspection reports. Plenty of WMD are documented.

Blix said was that there was no way to verify that Iraq had indeed destroyed these weapons on their own while inspectors were shut out of Iraq for 4+ years.

As for better sources of intelligence, the US has by far and away the best intelligence agencies. To claim otherwise only proves your deluded perceptions.
I was going to make a rather sarcastic reply here about a day in September 2001. Out of respect for people's feelings I won't.
weird wabbit
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 02:23 PM
 
Originally posted by gadster:
Most probably the same place you hear everything else, when your ear is too close to your rector's anus. JK
You Australians are sure clever

No, I heard it because I was the one that originally used that in my posts.


Oh, and JK
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 04:15 PM
 
Originally posted by spacefreak:
As for better sources of intelligence, the US has by far and away the best intelligence agencies...
Metrics that support this assertion would be welcomed.

The US never seems to see anything coming.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 04:39 PM
 
Originally posted by christ:
The US never seems to see anything coming.
Of course, you know all about what the intelligence agency has stopped from happening. See you don't hear about those things.
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 04:41 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Of course, you know all about what the intelligence agency has stopped from happening. See you don't hear about those things.
So the reason that I don't see any Vampires is that Buffy is real, and she does such a good job!
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 04:44 PM
 
Originally posted by christ:
So the reason that I don't see any Vampires is that Buffy is real, and she does such a good job!
I liked the original Buffy
     
dont.wanna.tell  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berlin / Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 04:59 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, fact is YOU don't know. I would never even try to make any comments as to what the Gov knows. Because only the people in charge know what the Gov knows. [/B]
In fact that would be a verry interesting question.

Is there anybody out there that has some knowledge about military tactics?

Because yesterday we had a German ex Airforce member on TV who said that even with his little knowledge about tactics the way the americans move in Iraq tells him that they must be completely sure that they don't have to fear any B/C weapons.

Of course I cannot proove this as all I know about tactics has verry much to do with StarCraft and very little with B/C war in Iraq.

cu Martin
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 05:01 PM
 
Originally posted by dont.wanna.tell:
In fact that would be a verry interesting question.

Is there anybody out there that has some knowledge about military tactics?

Because yesterday we had a German ex Airforce member on TV who said that even with his little knowledge about tactics the way the americans move in Iraq tells him that they must be completely sure that they don't have to fear any B/C weapons.

Of course I cannot proove this as all I know about tactics has verry much to do with StarCraft and very little with B/C war in Iraq.

cu Martin
Saddam wont use any such weapons until he thinks all hope is lost. If he used them now, no one would give him sympathy.
     
boots
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Unknown
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 05:12 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Saddam wont use any such weapons until he thinks all hope is lost. If he used them now, no one would give him sympathy.
As though they will give him sympathy after hope is lost?

BTW, what does your new sig say?

If Heaven has a dress code, I'm walkin to Hell in my Tony Lamas.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 05:13 PM
 
Originally posted by dont.wanna.tell:
Because yesterday we had a German ex Airforce member on TV who said that even with his little knowledge about tactics the way the americans move in Iraq tells him that they must be completely sure that they don't have to fear any B/C weapons.
I'd love to know what an Air Force person knows about ground combat tactics. Not much, I suspect because the little I know about it (from infantry training in the US Army) the US Army doesn't change its ground formations at all based on the threat of chemical weapons. Nukes perhaps, but not chem/bio. On the other hand, the fact that most of the troops are moving in MOPP 2 (NBC suit and boots) tells me that the Army does take the chem/bio threat seriously. If they didn't those troops would be a lot more effective in MOPP 0 or MOPP 1.

One thing that has been driving me batty about the media reporting is that they take any fool who has served in uniform and think they know about everything military, regardless of the branch we are talking about.

For example, the other day, National Public Radio interviewed an Air Force colonel about the American POWs. The interviewer asked him what kind of training US troops get. So he starts telling them about the POW training that US pilots receive. It never occured to him that perhaps Army truck drivers don't get the same training. In fact, regular US Army soldiers, espcially non-combat soldiers, get next to no training on how to survive being a POW. But did it occur to NPR that maybe an Air Force colonel doesn't know squat about the training enlisted Army personnel get? Obviously not.
     
dont.wanna.tell  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berlin / Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 05:18 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Saddam wont use any such weapons until he thinks all hope is lost. If he used them now, no one would give him sympathy.
Uh? I don't get it.

To me it seems as if any hope is _long_ since lost, because he will never get any sympathy from Bush regardless how long he waits.

Or is there some secret side in this President that I should know about?

cu Martin
     
dont.wanna.tell  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berlin / Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 05:29 PM
 
There's something else in this hole discussion that completely baffles me.

Everybody seems to care _so_ much about terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction. Yet to me 9/11 has clearly shown that as a terrorist to get maximum effect I really don't need them!

cu Martin
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 05:36 PM
 
Originally posted by boots:
As though they will give him sympathy after hope is lost?

No, after all hope is lost, it will be a bit too late for any sympathy.

BTW, what does your new sig say?
God Bless America.
     
dont.wanna.tell  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berlin / Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 05:37 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'd love to know what an Air Force person knows about ground combat tactics. Not much, I suspect because the little I know about it (from infantry training in the US Army) the US Army doesn't change its ground formations at all based on the threat of chemical weapons. Nukes perhaps, but not chem/bio.
As I said I don't know a thing about tactics.

But that person was really high in rank, not your average fighter pilot but someone from the big planing pack with all that cards and things, so I wouldn't wan't to move it aside so easily.

Could it be he meant not the way small packs of troops are mooving but the grand movement in Iraq?

As I said I don't know much about this.

One more question though: What exactly is this Mopp 3 Stuff about?

How much does it help?

I mean all that I know about Military protection gear is that the safety wests the german military has do _not_ help against a direct shot, as do the helmets. It's just there to make them feel safe.

I hope for any soldier out there that it's _not_ the same with this stuff?

cu Martin
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 05:38 PM
 
Originally posted by dont.wanna.tell:
Uh? I don't get it.

To me it seems as if any hope is _long_ since lost, because he will never get any sympathy from Bush regardless how long he waits.

Or is there some secret side in this President that I should know about?

cu Martin
Not Sympathy from Bush, but support and sympathy for other nations. When Saddam finally realizes, he has no chance of keeping control of Iraq, there will be no holding back.

Saddam still has hope.
     
climber
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pacific NW
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 05:43 PM
 
Originally posted by dont.wanna.tell:
There's something else in this hole discussion that completely baffles me.

Everybody seems to care _so_ much about terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction. Yet to me 9/11 has clearly shown that as a terrorist to get maximum effect I really don't need them!

cu Martin

Take 50 billion dollars worth of oil and convert it to cash. Make or Buy a small nuke. Place in van parked in downtown NY. Boom!

This could be done by many nations right now, the difference is that Saddam would do it right now if he could.
climber
     
dont.wanna.tell  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berlin / Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 05:43 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Saddam still has hope.
I don't know. I don't ever want to underestimate an enemy of mine, so I think it would be very dangerous to pretend that Saddam's dumb enough for this.

cu Martin
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 05:46 PM
 
Originally posted by dont.wanna.tell:
I don't know. I don't ever want to underestimate an enemy of mine, so I think it would be very dangerous to pretend that Saddam's dumb enough for this.

cu Martin
Not so much as dumb, as self delusioned.
     
boots
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Unknown
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 05:47 PM
 
Originally posted by dont.wanna.tell:
Because yesterday we had a German ex Airforce member on TV who said that even with his little knowledge about tactics the way the americans move in Iraq tells him that they must be completely sure that they don't have to fear any B/C weapons.
I don't know dick about tactics, but I think the key phrase here is "the way the Americans move . . .[says] that they don't have to fear any B/C weapons."

As simey said, the troops are prepared, so the deployment of b/c weapons is nothing to fear for the troop anyway. So they are acting accordingly.

Interesting "interview" with an "anonymous" weapons inspector from Time. Not much info really, but supports the idea above.

If Heaven has a dress code, I'm walkin to Hell in my Tony Lamas.
     
dont.wanna.tell  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berlin / Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 05:51 PM
 
Originally posted by climber:
Take 50 billion dollars worth of oil and convert it to cash. Make or Buy a small nuke. Place in van parked in downtown NY. Boom!

This could be done by many nations right now, the difference is that Saddam would do it right now if he could.
Two things:

But he wouldn't ever do it if this war wasn't at hand, because afterwards it _would_ start. With support of the whole world. Which is preciesly why I fear that this war won't end Terrorism. (Or is there a flaw in this logic?)

And on the other hand, for that money I could also get much more than a hundred 9/11's.

I hate even calculating like this, but if I where a terrorist I would do it.

cu Martin
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 05:52 PM
 
Originally posted by dont.wanna.tell:
As I said I don't know a thing about tactics.

But that person was really high in rank, not your average fighter pilot but someone from the big planing pack with all that cards and things, so I wouldn't wan't to move it aside so easily.

Could it be he meant not the way small packs of troops are mooving but the grand movement in Iraq?

As I said I don't know much about this.

One more question though: What exactly is this Mopp 3 Stuff about?

How much does it help?

I mean all that I know about Military protection gear is that the safety wests the german military has do _not_ help against a direct shot, as do the helmets. It's just there to make them feel safe.

I hope for any soldier out there that it's _not_ the same with this stuff?

cu Martin
The point is that military officers specialize. Just because you hold a high rank in one service, does not mean you know anything about the other service. That of course goes even more when you are talking about a person from one country's armed forces commenting on another.

My observations of tactics are mostly from having been one of the soldiers in training exercises. When the threat of simulated chemical attack went up, we raised our MOPP level. We didn't change our formations on the battlefield.

I also spend a couple of years as the driver to a general commanding one of the armored divisions. In that position, I got a more bird's eye view of things. Again, I never saw the formations change as a result of the threat level. Those formations are dictated far more by terrain.

From memory, MOPP stands for Military Oriented Protective Posture. Mopp 4 is when you are in your entire suit. If you start deleting items you go down the MOPP levels. The less you wear, the better for comfort, but of course, you need MOPP 4 for actual protection. But it takes a while to put some of it on, so you wear part of it so that you can quickly go to MOPP 4 if necessary (basically, within seconds).

How effective the suits are is somewhat theoretical since nobody has tried those particular suits for real in actual combat. Obviously, it is tested, and supposedly the suits are quite effective. Let's hope we don't have to find out for real.

By the way, one last thing about your expert. I wonder what level of information he has access to? You said he's retired. That means he's not getting official information, and anyway, he's German, not American or British. I haven't seen any public information that shows the movements of any force below the division level. So how does he purport to know what formations are being used? Basically, it sounds to me like he was talking out of his arse just as the US Air Force colonel was on NPR.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 05:57 PM
 
Originally posted by dont.wanna.tell:
Two things:

But he wouldn't ever do it if this war wasn't at hand, because afterwards it _would_ start. With support of the whole world. Which is preciesly why I fear that this war won't end Terrorism. (Or is there a flaw in this logic?)
No he would pay and support someone to do it. That way Iraq looks innocent.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 06:04 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
How effective the suits are is somewhat theoretical since nobody has tried those particular suits for real in actual combat.
Desert Storm?

I am also curious (since you served) about your take on the Gulf War Syndrome...
     
climber
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pacific NW
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 06:04 PM
 
Originally posted by dont.wanna.tell:
Two things:

But he wouldn't ever do it if this war wasn't at hand, because afterwards it _would_ start. With support of the whole world. Which is preciesly why I fear that this war won't end Terrorism. (Or is there a flaw in this logic?)

And on the other hand, for that money I could also get much more than a hundred 9/11's.

I hate even calculating like this, but if I where a terrorist I would do it.

cu Martin
The real cause for terrorism in that region is extreme poverty. The anger and frustration caused by starving to death, is then directed at the US and the west. It does not help that the US is so heavily involved in the region either.

The only hope the US and the west has, is to address this issue after the war. It will be a real transformation in attitudes over there, when the Iraqi people are being fed and can get western style medical care.

Long term, real economic growth that benefits the majority of the Iraqi people, rather than a single and brutal dictator, will be the real solution.
climber
     
simonjames
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bondi Beach
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 06:06 PM
 
I like how no one here listened to dont.wanna.tell

September 11 was not carried out by chemical or biological weapons - they used civilian airliners. All this talk about attacking Iraq to remove it's WoMD is just bulldust. Is American going to remove their Boeing 737s and their Airbuses?

Nope - you're all listening to the propaganda fed to you by your government and news agencies - believing everything they tell you.

As to American intelligence - yesterday the Iraqis used a Russian made anti-tank missile to great effect. A weapon that American Intelligence didn't know they had.

You guys going to start boycotting Russian products too or are you going to keep on the backs of the French?

Has anyone heard anything further of America using Napalm on Basra?
this sig intentionally left blank
     
dont.wanna.tell  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berlin / Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 06:08 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
How effective the suits are is somewhat theoretical since nobody has tried those particular suits for real in actual combat. Obviously, it is tested, and supposedly the suits are quite effective. Let's hope we don't have to find out for real.
One of the things that disturbs me the most about the German army is that most of the divisions not even tell their troops that the protection gear they wear don't help them a bit.

I really hope this is not the case with this Mopp stuff!

By the way, one last thing about your expert. I wonder what level of information he has access to? [...] I haven't seen any public information that shows the movements of any force below the division level. So how does he purport to know what formations are being used?
Of course I may be wrong, but it sounded to me that this was exactly what he was refering to. (But I also think that as an ex-military one knows where to get some more information than I could get.)

cu Martin
( Last edited by dont.wanna.tell; Mar 27, 2003 at 06:14 PM. )
     
dont.wanna.tell  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berlin / Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 06:19 PM
 
Originally posted by climber:
The real cause for terrorism in that region is extreme poverty. The anger and frustration caused by starving to death, is then directed at the US and the west. It does not help that the US is so heavily involved in the region either.
My agreement! Though I'd like to add that historically the big terrorists (Bin Ladin) wheren't from the poor, but instead one of the rich down there (almost funny).

Long term, real economic growth that benefits the majority of the Iraqi people, rather than a single and brutal dictator, will be the real solution.
Amen!
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 06:23 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
I liked the original Buffy
Nah. She only had to fight Peewee Herman and a replicant - SMG is much better.

Not that I watch it you understand - my daughter told me. Really.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
climber
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pacific NW
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 06:30 PM
 
Originally posted by dont.wanna.tell:
My agreement! Though I'd like to add that historically the big terrorists (Bin Ladin) wheren't from the poor, but instead one of the rich down there (almost funny).



Amen!


The leaders were rich, but they would be powerless without the poor soldiers they recruited.
climber
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 06:44 PM
 
Originally posted by simonjames:
September 11 was not carried out by chemical or biological weapons - they used civilian airliners. All this talk about attacking Iraq to remove it's WoMD is just bulldust. Is American going to remove their Boeing 737s and their Airbuses?
I've always thought 9/11 was the worst "clean" hit we could have taken.

Within hours of it happening, the thought crossed my mind "we were lucky, this could have been way worse".

Way worse would of course include some sort of nuclear/biological component.

I also recall a great fear that the stakes would be raised afterwards. The WTC was just a "shot across the bow", they had to do something worse to top it.

Remember the run on gas masks after 9/11?

I don't support the invasion, but I don't snicker at WMD either.

To reply directly to d.w.t:

Originally posted by dont.wanna.tell:
But he wouldn't ever do it if this war wasn't at hand, because afterwards it _would_ start. With support of the whole world. Which is preciesly why I fear that this war won't end Terrorism. (Or is there a flaw in this logic?)
My cynical take is we are baiting Saddam to hit us with WMD. We take the punch (i.e. not retalliate in kind). Then we wait for world support to roll in like the cavalry, all the time saying "See... I told'ja so!"

If it works, it's quite brilliant.

Me, I would have just bribed France and Russia to get on board. I especially see Russia tripping over itself to whore out to us if the price was right.

I'll leave whether the $60bil or so Bush wants would have been the right price as an excercise for the astute reader.
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 08:15 PM
 
Actually, although as does every other armchair warrior on this board, I have no idea what really causes fundamentalist Islamic terrorists to get their motivation, but I'll give it a go:

It seems to me that the issue is not really one of extreme poverty, as Climber claimed. If that were to be the case, you'ld have terrorists from Eritrea, Niger, Burkino Faso, Guinea, Mocambique, Angola, Mauretania, Rwanda, Burundi, Brazil, South Africa or even the USA for that matter etc all clamouring at the gates to blow up things in the west. I come from Africa and it's my experience that people from truly utterly poor areas have other things to worry about than blowing up buildings in a city that they never have and never will see. Crime is more often the result of extreme poverty, terrorism is not.

Apart from Yemen, none of the countries in the Arabian peninsula are poor, as you find real poverty in Africa. Even though there are large parts of the Saudi population that are not well off, utter poverty isn't really true there. Iraq was incredibly well off until Saddam started his wars, and has only become truly poor as a result of the sanctions, the Iran-Iraq war and the last Gulf War.

I think the cause of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is in reality similar to the Christian fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics and who blew up that building in Oklahoma. I think it is a mixture of relgious zeal, and dissatisfaction with one's state of living. There is a real sense of grievance in the Arab world about the situation of the Palestinians, but I think the real fuel of terrorism in that area is frustration with their own governments, which are all highly repressive. If they were to undergo transformation and turn into Islamic republics, you can be sure that they wouldn't be better off, but, just as is happening in Iran, eventually the population itself would realise that for themselves and the countries would start a natural process of emancipation.

This is, I think one of the big ironies of Bush's war on terror. He supports regimes that are highly repressive, such as those in Saudi Arabia and Egypt (which has been under martial law for over twenty year), as they are friendly to the USA, and propagandises against regimes that have some popular legitimation, such as that in Iran. I know enough Arabs who have pointed out this fact to me, to realise that it must have some weight amongst those peoples. A lot of Moslems see the attack on Iraq as an attack on Islam, irrespective of whether Bush/Blair see it that way or not.

The idea of Saddam Hussein supplying weapons of mass destruction to funamentalist terrorists (this word is starting to bother me, it reminds me too much of the words used back in South Africa) is a propaganda tool to justify the invasion of Iraq. I'll show why:

Most Americans, and indeed most of the world, were horrified at the september 2001 Al-Qaida attacks in the USA. It was the biggest single such attack in history. The perpetrators of the attack were Saudis and Egyptians. The weapons used in the attacks were boxcutters, used to overpower the crews and passangers of the planes, which were then flown into the buildings. 3000 people died as a result of those attacks. It is fascinating to note how the perpetrators of those attacks have been remoulded into being Iraqis in the American publics conscience in the lead up to the present war in Iraq, and how was claimed that

a.)Iraq had WMD

and

b.)was giving it to Al-Ansar, a group of fundamentalists in north eastern Iraq, cleimed by the USA to have links to Al-Qaida.

Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. It has no bearing on further terrorist attacks. If terrorists wanted to make chemical weapons, they surely do not need a whole country to make it for them. The discoveries of Ricin, an extremely poisonous substance made from plain siimple castor beans, in London and Paris shows that terrorists don't need Iraq's laboratories to make those weapons. Even an attack with Dioxin, a very poisonous chemical used in a lot of industrial processes or Hydrogen Cyanide, would be enough to kill a lot of people.

As for biological weapons, in biblical times they already had very "good" ones. They simply threw animal carcases into wells, thereby poisoning the water. One doesn't need Iraq to make or supply dead animals.

For nuclear weapons, if any terrorist group would actually use one (the resulting reprisals would be universally supported and very thorough and ruthless), would it not make more sense to attempt to coopt one from sympathetic scientists and military officers in a country that already has them, such as Pakistan?

So my conclusion is that, while I have no idea, I think this war will not have a positive effect on the war on terrorism.
weird wabbit
     
boots
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Unknown
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 08:25 PM
 
Originally posted by simonjames:
I like how no one here listened to dont.wanna.tell

September 11 was not carried out by chemical or biological weapons - they used civilian airliners. All this talk about attacking Iraq to remove it's WoMD is just bulldust. Is American going to remove their Boeing 737s and their Airbuses?

Didn't ignore it, just didn't have anything to add or argue. The point is valid.

If Heaven has a dress code, I'm walkin to Hell in my Tony Lamas.
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 08:40 PM
 
Originally posted by theolein:
Actually, although as does every other armchair warrior on this board, I have no idea what really causes fundamentalist Islamic terrorists to get their motivation, but I'll give it a go:

It seems to me that the issue is not really one of extreme poverty, as Climber claimed. If that were to be the case, you'ld have terrorists from Eritrea, Niger, Burkino Faso, Guinea, Mocambique, Angola, Mauretania, Rwanda, Burundi, Brazil, South Africa or even the USA for that matter etc all clamouring at the gates to blow up things in the west. I come from Africa and it's my experience that people from truly utterly poor areas have other things to worry about than blowing up buildings in a city that they never have and never will see. Crime is more often the result of extreme poverty, terrorism is not.

Apart from Yemen, none of the countries in the Arabian peninsula are poor, as you find real poverty in Africa. Even though there are large parts of the Saudi population that are not well off, utter poverty isn't really true there. Iraq was incredibly well off until Saddam started his wars, and has only become truly poor as a result of the sanctions, the Iran-Iraq war and the last Gulf War.

I think the cause of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is in reality similar to the Christian fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics and who blew up that building in Oklahoma. I think it is a mixture of relgious zeal, and dissatisfaction with one's state of living. There is a real sense of grievance in the Arab world about the situation of the Palestinians, but I think the real fuel of terrorism in that area is frustration with their own governments, which are all highly repressive. If they were to undergo transformation and turn into Islamic republics, you can be sure that they wouldn't be better off, but, just as is happening in Iran, eventually the population itself would realise that for themselves and the countries would start a natural process of emancipation.

This is, I think one of the big ironies of Bush's war on terror. He supports regimes that are highly repressive, such as those in Saudi Arabia and Egypt (which has been under martial law for over twenty year), as they are friendly to the USA, and propagandises against regimes that have some popular legitimation, such as that in Iran. I know enough Arabs who have pointed out this fact to me, to realise that it must have some weight amongst those peoples. A lot of Moslems see the attack on Iraq as an attack on Islam, irrespective of whether Bush/Blair see it that way or not.

The idea of Saddam Hussein supplying weapons of mass destruction to funamentalist terrorists (this word is starting to bother me, it reminds me too much of the words used back in South Africa) is a propaganda tool to justify the invasion of Iraq. I'll show why:

Most Americans, and indeed most of the world, were horrified at the september 2001 Al-Qaida attacks in the USA. It was the biggest single such attack in history. The perpetrators of the attack were Saudis and Egyptians. The weapons used in the attacks were boxcutters, used to overpower the crews and passangers of the planes, which were then flown into the buildings. 3000 people died as a result of those attacks. It is fascinating to note how the perpetrators of those attacks have been remoulded into being Iraqis in the American publics conscience in the lead up to the present war in Iraq, and how was claimed that

a.)Iraq had WMD

and

b.)was giving it to Al-Ansar, a group of fundamentalists in north eastern Iraq, cleimed by the USA to have links to Al-Qaida.

Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. It has no bearing on further terrorist attacks. If terrorists wanted to make chemical weapons, they surely do not need a whole country to make it for them. The discoveries of Ricin, an extremely poisonous substance made from plain siimple castor beans, in London and Paris shows that terrorists don't need Iraq's laboratories to make those weapons. Even an attack with Dioxin, a very poisonous chemical used in a lot of industrial processes or Hydrogen Cyanide, would be enough to kill a lot of people.

As for biological weapons, in biblical times they already had very "good" ones. They simply threw animal carcases into wells, thereby poisoning the water. One doesn't need Iraq to make or supply dead animals.

For nuclear weapons, if any terrorist group would actually use one (the resulting reprisals would be universally supported and very thorough and ruthless), would it not make more sense to attempt to coopt one from sympathetic scientists and military officers in a country that already has them, such as Pakistan?

So my conclusion is that, while I have no idea, I think this war will not have a positive effect on the war on terrorism.
[AOL]Me too - Well said that man[/AOL]
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 09:40 PM
 
Originally posted by subego:
Desert Storm?

I am also curious (since you served) about your take on the Gulf War Syndrome...
No chemical weapons were used in desert storm - unless you believe that one isolated Czechoslovac chemical unit report.

Sorry, I don't know anything in particular about Gulf War Syndrome. I have no medical qualifications to comment and I didn't serve in Desert Storm. I served during the Gulf War, but my division never left the US.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 09:48 PM
 
Originally posted by dont.wanna.tell:
One of the things that disturbs me the most about the German army is that most of the divisions not even tell their troops that the protection gear they wear don't help them a bit.

I really hope this is not the case with this Mopp stuff!
I don't know. I do know that most soldiers have a very healthy respect for chemical weapons (fear is another word). At least when I was in the Army, we always assumed that a significant number of casualties would be sustained in any chemical attack. All of our training assumed that. Nobody assumed that the suits would be 100% effective. The decontamination routine is also pretty feared by the troops. It involves wiping the skin with bleach strong enough to burn and a chemical called DS-2 used for decontaminating vehicles that is a known carcinogen.

I'd have to say that most troops don't really trust the atropine injections to do much more that help you die happier than you otherwise would. So I wouldn't say that US troops are uninformed about the limitations of chemical protection.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 10:37 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No chemical weapons were used in desert storm - unless you believe that one isolated Czechoslovac chemical unit report.

Sorry, I don't know anything in particular about Gulf War Syndrome. I have no medical qualifications to comment and I didn't serve in Desert Storm. I served during the Gulf War, but my division never left the US.
I've heard the whole range from "half the people who were there are suffering from it" to "it's a complete sham".

I figured if the former is even close to true you might know someone who has it, or know more about it.

There's certainly no need to apologize, The fact you don't know anything in particular is informative in itself.



It just occurred to me that had we not supposedly "covered-up" GWS, GWS would have played directly into the hands of the current administration, in terms of a simple, easily digestible reason to rally the country around the invasion.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003, 11:04 PM
 
Originally posted by subego:
I've heard the whole range from "half the people who were there are suffering from it" to "it's a complete sham".

I figured if the former is even close to true you might know someone who has it, or know more about it.

There's certainly no need to apologize, The fact you don't know anything in particular is informative in itself.
I served with a large number of Gulf War veterans. None that I knew of suffered any side-effects of their service in the Gulf, at least not up to the point when I was discharged (November, 1995).
     
simonjames
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bondi Beach
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2003, 02:04 AM
 
Some good posts here - thanks for the read

To bring this topic and "Practice to Deceive" together I think most people here now agree that this war is not about WoMD and liberating the Iraqi people but about controlling a region of the world to put US interests first.

I hope further casualties are minimal - on both sides.

It is going to be an interesting next decade
this sig intentionally left blank
     
L'enfanTerrible
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: I'm at the sneak point.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2003, 02:36 AM
 
The best explanation of how this war will help to stop terrorism, I read in an article in Esquire magazine. The article was titled "The Pentagon's New Map of the World" and I tried to find it here on the web but no luck.

The gist of the article is this: There are two parts of the world; the part that is involved (incorporated, if you will) in globalization, industry, the internet, etc. Did you know that America has never gone to war with a country that has a McDonalds? -- They call this part of the world "the Functioning Core", and not many terrorists come out of this "core" (with the exception of Israel/Palestine but that is just bad geography.) ---- The other part of the world is "the Gap" including Africa, most of the Middle East, South America, basically the middle of the world by the equator. The third world. The little kids in the playground that don't fit in and bubble under the surface. These places are not involved in the mass globalization that seems to be the future of our society. There is no internet, and the people are exploited for their natural resources and forced to live in a way that is not natural because of the foreign policy of the Modern Roman Empire (otherwise known as The US OF A.) The gap is where terrorism is bred. There are other gaps, in smaller scale all over our own countries and in our cities. It's all a matter of perception.

The goal of this war is to make the Gap smaller. To make the whole world one big Core of efficiency.

It is up to all of us to make sure we are doing it for the right reasons, for the right future.
     
NosniboR80
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: DC, Atlanta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2003, 04:49 AM
 
Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
The best explanation of how this war will help to stop terrorism, I read in an article in Esquire magazine. The article was titled "The Pentagon's New Map of the World" and I tried to find it here on the web but no luck.

The gist of the article is this: There are two parts of the world; the part that is involved (incorporated, if you will) in globalization, industry, the internet, etc. Did you know that America has never gone to war with a country that has a McDonalds? -- They call this part of the world "the Functioning Core", and not many terrorists come out of this "core" (with the exception of Israel/Palestine but that is just bad geography.) ---- The other part of the world is "the Gap" including Africa, most of the Middle East, South America, basically the middle of the world by the equator. The third world. The little kids in the playground that don't fit in and bubble under the surface. These places are not involved in the mass globalization that seems to be the future of our society. There is no internet, and the people are exploited for their natural resources and forced to live in a way that is not natural because of the foreign policy of the Modern Roman Empire (otherwise known as The US OF A.) The gap is where terrorism is bred. There are other gaps, in smaller scale all over our own countries and in our cities. It's all a matter of perception.

The goal of this war is to make the Gap smaller. To make the whole world one big Core of efficiency.

It is up to all of us to make sure we are doing it for the right reasons, for the right future.

Wow! I'm for the war, and partly because I think it is a good step toward a better society in the region (i.e. in the long run, I think/hope terrorism will decrease significantly). Yet, this post is absolute rubbish. I hope that no one is actually expecting this prediction that you mention, because they will be sorely disappointed.
Semper Fi
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2003, 10:16 AM
 
Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
The best explanation of how this war will help to stop terrorism, I read in an article in Esquire magazine. The article was titled "The Pentagon's New Map of the World" and I tried to find it here on the web but no luck.

The gist of the article is this: There are two parts of the world; the part that is involved (incorporated, if you will) in globalization, industry, the internet, etc. Did you know that America has never gone to war with a country that has a McDonalds? -- They call this part of the world "the Functioning Core", and not many terrorists come out of this "core" (with the exception of Israel/Palestine but that is just bad geography.) ---- The other part of the world is "the Gap" including Africa, most of the Middle East, South America, basically the middle of the world by the equator. The third world. The little kids in the playground that don't fit in and bubble under the surface. These places are not involved in the mass globalization that seems to be the future of our society. There is no internet, and the people are exploited for their natural resources and forced to live in a way that is not natural because of the foreign policy of the Modern Roman Empire (otherwise known as The US OF A.) The gap is where terrorism is bred. There are other gaps, in smaller scale all over our own countries and in our cities. It's all a matter of perception.

The goal of this war is to make the Gap smaller. To make the whole world one big Core of efficiency.

It is up to all of us to make sure we are doing it for the right reasons, for the right future.
I read this in disbelief. Some clown, reveling in his idea of a coming American empire, too stupid to use the internet that he claims half the world doesn't have to actually look if there is anyone using it there (try google, dumfukk), writing an article about neonazi American wet dreams of conquest where the rest of the world will bend over and hail the coming of the American Raj. This article, giving the rest of the world a quaint name normally used by a line of clothes, is then quoted by the greedy little fatty fingers of another of his benighted nation also too incompetent or stupid too actually wonder if

a the rest of the world is interested

b there might not be some protest or reaction against these plans.

I think it might be a good time to let you know that the rest of the world is real and not part of a video game or movie, even if it above your mental capabilities to find it on an atlas.

I wonder how many in your nation actually belive things like this? After reading that piece on Wolfowitz, Perle, Fischer and co, last night I am tempted to think that it is indeed quite a few.

I find it remarkable how you people are able to claim that Al-Jazeera is biased and "stupid" in the same breath as believing some frighteningly immature, retarded crap like this.

I am amazed at how fast your country forgot the lessons of vietnam and seems to equate the rest of the world with Afghanistan, even though there is now, 2 years after the conquest of that country, still considerable opposition to the American occupation. If your country does embark of a war of global conquest, as indeed it seems it has in Iraq, I hope you are prepared for very many of your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters to not return.

You may see it as liberating the world, but believe me as I come from one of those countries that apparently does not have any internet, the rest of the world does not see it so.
weird wabbit
     
boots
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Unknown
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2003, 10:30 AM
 
It does bring up an interesting point that I have made before. The new "cold war" is about globalization. More specifically, the way globalization is happening. 9/11 could be (and has by some analysts) called the firts counter strike in the war of globalization.

I don't want to argue about the specific crap in the above linked article, but the general idea may have some relevenace. Particularly in light of the other thread we have going on about the "practive to decieve".

If Heaven has a dress code, I'm walkin to Hell in my Tony Lamas.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:15 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,