Quagmire?

[echidna]

click here to read the quoted original (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=49&ItemID=3812)

Originally posted by http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=49&ItemID=3812
Bush's Vietnam

by John Pilger
New Statesman
June 22, 2003

America's two "great victories" since 11 September 2001 are unravelling. In Afghanistan, the regime of Hamid Karzai has virtually no authority and no money, and would collapse without American guns. Al-Qaeda has not been defeated, and the Taliban are re-emerging. Regardless of showcase improvements, the situation of women and children remains desperate. The token woman in Karzai's cabinet, the courageous physician Sima Samar, has been forced out of government and is now in constant fear of her life, with an armed guard outside her office door and another at her gate. Murder, rape and child abuse are committed with impunity by the private armies of America's "friends", the warlords whom Washington has bribed with millions of dollars, cash in hand, to give the pretence of stability.

"We are in a combat zone the moment we leave this base," an American colonel told me at Bagram airbase, near Kabul. "We are shot at every day, several times a day." When I said that surely he had come to liberate and protect the people, he belly-laughed.

American troops are rarely seen in Afghanistan's towns. They escort US officials at high speed in armoured vans with blackened windows and military vehicles, mounted with machine-guns, in front and behind. Even the vast Bagram base was considered too insecure for the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, during his recent, fleeting visit. So nervous are the Americans that a few weeks ago they "accidentally" shot dead four government soldiers in the centre of Kabul, igniting the second major street protest against their presence in a week.

On the day I left Kabul, a car bomb exploded on the road to the airport, killing four German soldiers, members of the international security force Isaf. The Germans' bus was lifted into the air; human flesh lay on the roadside. When British soldiers arrived to "seal off" the area, they were watched by a silent crowd, squinting into the heat and dust, across a divide as wide as that which separated British troops from Afghans in the 19th century, and the French from Algerians and Americans from Vietnamese.

In Iraq, scene of the second "great victory", there are two open secrets. The first is that the "terrorists" now besieging the American occupation force represent an armed resistance that is almost certainly supported by the majority of Iraqis who, contrary to pre-war propaganda, opposed their enforced "liberation" (see Jonathan Steele's investigation, 19 March 2003, www.guardian.co.uk). The second secret is that there is emerging evidence of the true scale of the Anglo-American killing, pointing to the bloodbath Bush and Blair have always denied.

Comparisons with Vietnam have been made so often over the years that I hesitate to draw another. However, the similarities are striking: for example, the return of expressions such as "sucked into a quagmire". This suggests, once again, that the Americans are victims, not invaders: the approved Hollywood version when a rapacious adventure goes wrong. Since Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled almost three months ago, more Americans have been killed than during the war. Ten have been killed and 25 wounded in classic guerrilla attacks on roadblocks and checkpoints which may number as many as a dozen a day.

The Americans call the guerrillas "Saddam loyalists" and "Ba'athist fighters", in the same way they used to dismiss the Vietnamese as "communists". Recently, in Falluja, in the Sunni heartland of Iraq, it was clearly not the presence of Ba'athists or Saddamists, but the brutal behaviour of the occupiers, who fired point-blank at a crowd, that inspired the resistance. The American tanks gunning down a family of shepherds is reminiscent of the gunning down of a shepherd, his family and sheep by "coalition" aircraft in a "no-fly zone" four years ago, whose aftermath I filmed and which evoked, for me, the murderous games American aircraft used to play in Vietnam, gunning down farmers in their fields, children on their buffaloes.

On 12 June, a large American force attacked a "terrorist base" north of Baghdad and left more than 100 dead, according to a US spokesman. The term "terrorist" is important, because it implies that the likes of al-Qaeda are attacking the liberators, and so the connection between Iraq and 11 September is made, which in pre-war propaganda was never made.

More than 400 prisoners were taken in this operation. The majority have reportedly joined thousands of Iraqis in a "holding facility" at Baghdad airport: a concentration camp along the lines of Bagram, from where people are shipped to Guantanamo Bay. In Afghanistan, the Americans pick up taxi drivers and send them into oblivion, via Bagram. Like Pinochet's boys in Chile, they are making their perceived enemies "disappear".

"Search and destroy", the scorched-earth tactic from Vietnam, is back. In the arid south-eastern plains of Afghanistan, the village of Niazi Qala no longer stands. American airborne troops swept down before dawn on 30 December 2001 and slaughtered, among others, a wedding party. Villagers said that women and children ran towards a dried pond, seeking protection from the gunfire, and were shot as they ran. After two hours, the aircraft and the attackers left. According to a United Nations investigation, 52 people were killed, including 25 children. "We identified it as a military target," says the Pentagon, echoing its initial response to the My Lai massacre 35 years ago.

The targeting of civilians has long been a journalistic taboo in the west. Accredited monsters did that, never "us". The civilian death toll of the 1991 Gulf war was wildly underestimated. Almost a year later, a comprehensive study by the Medical Education Trust in London estimated that more than 200,000 Iraqis had died during and immediately after the war, as a direct or indirect consequence of attacks on civilian infrastructure. The report was all but ignored. This month, Iraq Body Count, a group of American and British academics and researchers, estimated that up to 10,000 civilians may have been killed in Iraq, including 2,356 civilians in the attack on Baghdad alone. And this is likely to be an extremely conservative figure.

In Afghanistan, there has been similar carnage. In May last year, Jonathan Steele extrapolated all the available field evidence of the human cost of the US bombing and concluded that as many as 20,000 Afghans may have lost their lives as an indirect consequence of the bombing, many of them drought victims denied relief.

This "hidden" effect is hardly new. A recent study at Columbia University in New York has found that the spraying of Agent Orange and other herbicides on Vietnam was up to four times as great as previously estimated. Agent Orange contained dioxin, one of the deadliest poisons known. In what they first called Operation Hades, then changed to the friendlier Operation Ranch Hand, the Americans in Vietnam destroyed, in some 10,000 "missions" to spray Agent Orange, almost half the forests of southern Vietnam, and countless human lives. It was the most insidious and perhaps the most devastating use of a chemical weapon of mass destruction ever. Today, Vietnamese children continue to be born with a range of deformities, or they are stillborn, or the foetuses are aborted.

The use of uranium-tipped munitions evokes the catastrophe of Agent Orange. In the first Gulf war in 1991, the Americans and British used 350 tonnes of depleted uranium. According to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, quoting an international study, 50 tonnes of DU, if inhaled or ingested, would cause 500,000 deaths. Most of the victims are civilians in southern Iraq. It is estimated that 2,000 tonnes were used during the latest attack.

In a remarkable series of reports for the Christian Science Monitor, the investigative reporter Scott Peterson has described radiated bullets in the streets of Baghdad and radiation-contaminated tanks, where children play without warning. Belatedly, a few signs in Arabic have appeared: "Danger - Get away from this area". At the same time, in Afghanistan, the Uranium Medical Research Centre, based in Canada, has made two field studies, with the results described as "shocking". "Without exception," it reported, "at every bomb site investigated, people are ill. A significant portion of the civilian population presents symptoms consistent with internal contamination by uranium."

An official map distributed to non-government agencies in Iraq shows that the American and British military have plastered urban areas with cluster bombs, many of which will have failed to detonate on impact. These usually lie unnoticed until children pick them up, then they explode.

In the centre of Kabul, I found two ragged notices warning people that the rubble of their homes, and streets, contained unexploded cluster bombs "made in USA". Who reads them? Small children? The day I watched children skipping through what might have been an urban minefield, I saw Tony Blair on CNN in the lobby of my hotel. He was in Iraq, in Basra, lifting a child into his arms, in a school that had been painted for his visit, and where lunch had been prepared in his honour, in a city where basic services such as education, food and water remain a shambles under the British occupation.

It was in Basra three years ago that I filmed hundreds of children ill and dying because they had been denied cancer treatment equipment and drugs under an embargo enforced with enthusiasm by Tony Blair. Now here he was - shirt open, with that fixed grin, a man of the troops if not of the people - lifting a toddler into his arms for the cameras.

When I returned to London, I read "After Lunch", by Harold Pinter, from a new collection of his called War (Faber & Faber).

And after noon the well-dressed creatures come To sniff among the dead And have their lunch

And all the many well-dressed creatures pluck The swollen avocados from the dust And stir the minestrone with stray bones

And after lunch They loll and lounge about Decanting claret in convenient skulls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Pilger is a renowned journalist and documentary film-maker. A war correspondent and ZNet Commentator, his writings have appeared in numerous magazines, and newspapers such as the Daily Mirror, the Guardian, the Independent, New Statesman, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, and other newspapers and periodicals around the world. His books include Heroes (2001) Hidden Agendas (1998) and Distant Voices (1994).
i have been in doubt of the efficacy of these policies for sometime, for how long do north americans think that the ostrich defence for bad news is wise to uphold?
are these failures of planning 'afterwards' phases for these recent wars defensible? what are the reasons for supporting these deadly follies?

[Rat Faced]

Hey, ask ShockAndAwe or FallenKnight.

People throughout the world hate USA for what they have, not what they do...
<sarcasm>


BTW:

John Pilger isnt a "Leftie", he&#39;s just as scathing against Left Wing governments (probably more so in fact ;) )

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

Why ask me?
I never said we were pure, but This article has more holes than a block of swiss cheese.
It figures Rat Faced would gobble it right up.

It&#39;s full of "shhhh it&#39;s secret and we found out about it" with absolutely no proof at all.
Who is this group of American and British academics and researchers.
Talk about vague&#33;
You present this..ahem, article as though it has hard facts and I see very few if any.

Who is Jonathan Steele and where did he get his numbers?
How can we verify any of those numbers or for that matter anything the writer of the article says?

As for the "uranium contamination" you are very quick to believe that it&#39;s the US&#39;s fault and not the Evil regime we excised from the region.
Agent orange may be the only facts here, and I mean maybe.


An official map distributed to non-government agencies in Iraq shows that the American and British military have plastered urban areas with cluster bombs,
Of course there were bombs dropped in urban area&#39;s...remember the Iraqi cowards setup most of there military operations in urban areas including schools, hospitals and peoples houses.
Whom they forced to fight and when they tried to get away they were shot.
Hell, they used their own people as cover.

This story writer keeps referring to cluster bombs and only cluster bombs being used in urban area&#39;s.
I think he has it in for the US, as cluster bombing in urban area&#39;s is a ridiculous choice.
The whole world saw first hand (on TV even) what we used.
Their were thousands of reporters there when we did it and not one of them says that he witnessed a cluster bombing of Baghdad.
Except this writer, who only went there after the fact.
The writer of this article has an obvious anti US bias.
I&#39;m surprised you posted it, but not that you believe it.
:rolleyes:
Show me real proof that cluster bombs were used in the Iraqi hood.

[echidna]

Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^+30 June 2003 - 16:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ShockAndAwe^i^ &#064; 30 June 2003 - 16:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why ask me?
I never said we were pure, but This article has more holes than a block of swiss cheese.
It figures Rat Faced would gobble it right up.

It&#39;s full of "shhhh it&#39;s secret and we found out about it" with absolutely no proof at all.
Who is this group of American and British academics and researchers.[/b]
the reason RF asked you i presume is that you are such a vocal supporter of US policy, therefore maybe you should be able to argue in it&#39;s favour
you have also posted media articles supporting your views, yet have to deride this one though childish taunts, and in terms of not presenting any evidence supporting your position, you are one of the worst offenders

so in hindsight maybe suggesting you could defend the US position might be ill-founded

back to those facts and your questions;

i think the US/UK researchers are; http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

[i]Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^+30 June 2003 - 16:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ShockAndAwe^i^ &#064; 30 June 2003 - 16:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Talk about vague&#33;
You present this..ahem, article as though it has hard facts and I see very few if any.[/b]
everyone managed to research references in news stories without hyperlinks or internet searches for hundreds of years, it&#39;s not vague just the way journalism works.
in terms of hard facts where are the WMD? where are the &#39;hard facts&#39; leading the USA to the presumption that war should be waged for WMD?
once again you negate evidence presented by others, while not presenting any support for your own position


Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@30 June 2003 - 16:23

Who is Jonathan Steele and where did he get his numbers?
How can we verify any of those numbers or for that matter anything the writer of the article says?
i think Johnathan Steele is a journalist working mostly for the UK paper &#39;The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)&#39;


Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@30 June 2003 - 16:23

As for the "uranium contamination" you are very quick to believe that it&#39;s the US&#39;s fault and not the Evil regime we excised from the region.
US standard issue munitions from heavy machine guns to anti-tank shells and rocket tips are all DU
DU and any uranium have been embargoed from importation into iraq for over 12 years
the USA/UK is THE ONLY supplier of uranium to iraq in that time and it has all been delivered by weapons systems
to argue that the &#39;evil regime&#39; that the USA liberated iraq from caused the DU contamination demonstrates that you cannot deal with reality
or that you think that women dressed attractively deserve to be raped

Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@30 June 2003 - 16:23

Agent orange may be the only facts here, and I mean maybe.


An official map distributed to non-government agencies in Iraq shows that the American and British military have plastered urban areas with cluster bombs,
Of course there were bombs dropped in urban area&#39;s...remember the Iraqi cowards setup most of there military operations in urban areas including schools, hospitals and peoples houses.
Whom they forced to fight and when they tried to get away they were shot.
Hell, they used their own people as cover.

This story writer keeps referring to cluster bombs and only cluster bombs being used in urban area&#39;s.
I think he has it in for the US, as cluster bombing in urban area&#39;s is a ridiculous choice.
The whole world saw first hand (on TV even) what we used.
Their were thousands of reporters there when we did it and not one of them says that he witnessed a cluster bombing of Baghdad.
Except this writer, who only went there after the fact.
you are telling lies or have only read pro-US media
cluster bombs were specifically developed with area denial/destruction of urban areas in mind [much better than mines in such situations]

i saw very little of what actually went down from all the &#39;embedded&#39; journos, lots of kids talking double-speak and looking scared, cruise missile launches, and artillery divisions and transport convoys.
i saw no fighting or examinations of the remains of battle from media under the guidance of US forces

<!--QuoteBegin-ShockAndAwe^i^@30 June 2003 - 16:23

The writer of this article has an obvious anti US bias.
I&#39;m surprised you posted it, but not that you believe it.
:rolleyes:
Show me real proof that cluster bombs were used in the Iraqi hood.[/quote]
do you have a pro-US blindness?
real proof? like the proof we went to war for?
but here you go hypocrit, from the horses mouth;
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0415-13.htm
The U.S. Central Command acknowledged Monday in response to questions from Newsday that U.S. forces have hit urban areas of Baghdad with "cluster bombs,” which scatter hundreds of small "submunitions” in an area the size of a football field.

A CentCom spokeswoman said that the cluster bombs were aimed at Iraqi missile systems and artillery and that "we had to use them in an urban environment because that was where Saddam Hussein put those weapons.”

Human rights groups want cluster bombs banned because their hundreds of grenade-like explosives scatter widely, sometimes out of combat areas, and can linger for years, detonating unexpectedly.

"From a humanitarian perspective, you don&#39;t use them, because they&#39;re very hard to target,” Goose said. He also noted that they have a high failure rate -- up to 25 percent -- leaving hundreds of bomblets "lying on the ground acting like little landmines.”
[/quote]
so maybe you should give us some real reasons why your position is sound, rather than just wasting you own time as you have, demonstrating nothing except your blind patriotism
tell us why you feel justified as a US cit?

[clocker]

Originally posted by echidna@29 June 2003 - 06:46

i have been in doubt of the efficacy of these policies for sometime, for how long do north americans think that the ostrich defence for bad news is wise to uphold?
are these failures of planning &#39;afterwards&#39; phases for these recent wars defensible? what are the reasons for supporting these deadly follies?
The Bush Administration&#39;s increasingly obvious misperception of the realities facing them in the Middle East ( and, obviously, Iraq in particular) shows that they were woefully unprepared to deal with the aftermath of their decisions.

Bush had the luxury of studying a successful blueprint of how to deal with the aftermath of war- Japan, and apparently couldn&#39;t be bothered.

As an American citizen there is little I can do personally outside of not voting for him in the upcoming election.

What would you like to see happen, Echidna?

[echidna]

Originally posted by clocker+30 June 2003 - 22:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 30 June 2003 - 22:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-echidna@29 June 2003 - 06:46

i have been in doubt of the efficacy of these policies for sometime, for how long do north americans think that the ostrich defence for bad news is wise to uphold?
are these failures of planning &#39;afterwards&#39; phases for these recent wars defensible? what are the reasons for supporting these deadly follies?
The Bush Administration&#39;s increasingly obvious misperception of the realities facing them in the Middle East ( and, obviously, Iraq in particular) shows that they were woefully unprepared to deal with the aftermath of their decisions.

Bush had the luxury of studying a successful blueprint of how to deal with the aftermath of war- Japan, and apparently couldn&#39;t be bothered.

As an American citizen there is little I can do personally outside of not voting for him in the upcoming election.

What would you like to see happen, Echidna?[/b][/quote]
i&#39;d like to see a lot more americans expressing their disappointment at the failures of the current administration as you have clocker.
the power of each of your votes is a sorely under-rated thing

it is interesting that you chose the example of japan, as i had been thinking of the post war reconstruction of west germany as an example of a well planned and executed post-conflict reconstruction
it goes to show that there is more than one example of the US dealing with the post conflict issue much better than has been demonstrated since
these two examples not only demonstrate that the US can oversee successful reconstructions, but demonstrate that the US can foster truly great and independent democratic nations to develop from the ashes of war

[the example of japan also shows that extremely difficult cultural and linguistic complexities can be overcome and even that the potential back-lash which could be expected from the only atomic target in history can be overcome :: which unfortunately calls the current administrations actions[or lack there of] into further question]

specifically in this thread i&#39;d like to see the reasons people have for supporting bushes policy now [not that your lack of support for the bush administration is not heartening to me :lol: ]

[Rat Faced]

cluster bombs were specifically developed with area denial/destruction of urban areas in mind

They were actually developed to take out airfields, POL points (fuel dumps), Ammo compounds and areas held by a regiment or greater in the open...not Urban areas.

Whoever ordered that they be used on an Urban area is a fool, they would cause widespread collateral damage, without necessarily touching the actual target......so i doubt it was an entirely military decision.



The Gardian is a newspaper, not a tabloid. It is the only National Newspaper in the UK that doesnt lean to left or right....its straight down the middle (for information)

[clocker]

Originally posted by echidna@30 June 2003 - 07:59

i&#39;d like to see a lot more americans expressing their disappointment at the failures of the current administration as you have clocker.
the power of each of your votes is a sorely under-rated thing


The papers are full of people expressing their disappointment over the way things are being handled. Probably branded as "leftists" or "Democrats"(gasp&#33;), but expressing dismay, nonetheless.

So what?

Bush is at the helm for at least another year, so suck it up and get used to it.

Personally, I think that Bush is turning into the biggest public relations disaster since Richard Nixon. It is almost inconcievable that he will be reelected based on merit, but it&#39;s hard to discount the massive money machine that is the Republican Party and the amount of power that said money affords them.
Given the success that Bush has had propagating his version of "the big lie" it&#39;s hard to buy into the "liberal media" control that we supposedly suffer from, isn&#39;t it?

[echidna]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+1 July 2003 - 03:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced &#064; 1 July 2003 - 03:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
cluster bombs were specifically developed with area denial/destruction of urban areas in mind

They were actually developed to take out airfields, POL points (fuel dumps), Ammo compounds and areas held by a regiment or greater in the open...not Urban areas.

Whoever ordered that they be used on an Urban area is a fool, they would cause widespread collateral damage, without necessarily touching the actual target......so i doubt it was an entirely military decision.



The Gardian is a newspaper, not a tabloid. It is the only National Newspaper in the UK that doesnt lean to left or right....its straight down the middle (for information)[/b]
CBU munitions are the most common &#39;cluster bomb&#39; used today;


Originally posted by http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/cbu-87.htm+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/cbu-87.htm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The CBU-87/B Combined Effects Munitions (CEM) is an all-purpose, air-delivered cluster weapons system. A total of 202 Combined Effects Bomb (CEB) effective against armor, personnel and material, are loaded in each dispenser enabling a single payload attack against a variety and wide area coverage. The CBU-87 is a 1,000-pound, Combined Effects Munition (CEM) for attacking soft target areas with detonating bomblets. The CBU-87 CEM, an all-purpose, air-delivered cluster weapons system, consists of a SW-65 Tactical Munitions Dispenser (TMD) with an optional FZU-39 proximity sensor.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/cbu-87-large-s.jpg
"Combined Effects Munition ("CEM") system" means any unguided, air-delivered cluster bomb of the 1000-pound class designated by the United States Department of Defense as CBU-87, including but not limited to CBU-87/B, CBU-87(D-2)/B, CBU-87(T-1)/B, CBU-87(T-2)/B, CBU-87(T-3)/B, CBU-87A/B, CBU-87B/B, and CBU-87C/B. Each CEM system consists of a cluster of 202 anti-armor, anti-personnel and incendiary bomblets that disperse over a discrete area and explode upon impact; a tactical munitions dispenser; a proximity sensor; and a shipping and storage container.
[/b]
please note the bold text is done by me to emphasise that these munitions are not currently intended only for the specific targets you detail RF, also note the use of the term &#39;soft target&#39; which has become synonymous with terrorist tactics, and usually indicating undefended and civilian targets.
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-87.htm@
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu97-3-s.jpg[/quote]
the sub-munitions are pretty little yellow things to find in a street, aren&#39;t they?
i had thought they were intended for the destruction of airfields too, but my research indicated that other types of air delivered munition were more suitable for this nowadays, such as;
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb2.html
the French Matra "Durandal" runway-cratering weapon, known in US service as the "BLU-107/B". The Durandal was based on the conceptually similar PAPAM "runway dibber" weapon, developed by Israel Military Industries (IMI) using Matra design concepts and employed during the 1967 Six-Day War.
http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb2a.jpg
The USAF has purchased thousands of Durandals. The Durandal weighs about 195 kilograms (430 pounds) and is parachute-retarded after low-level drop. Once it achieves a nose-down attitude, it fires a rocket booster that slams it into the ground, where it explodes and blasts out the runway. It can penetrate up to 40 centimeters (16 inches) of concrete, and leaves a crater with an area of about 200 square meters (2,150 square feet). USAF F-111s could carry up to 12 of these weapons at a time, while French Mirage 2000s could handle a total of 8.[/quote]
the &#39;67 war was a while ago now, so i don&#39;t think that cluster-bombs are the primary means of wrecking an airstrip anymore
[if you have good electronic references on this RF i&#39;d love to read them :: it is also good to hear the guardian being defended for it&#39;s integrity too]

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

Echidna
Every single view you have is clouded by your obvious anti US bias.
I don&#39;t think you&#39;ve ever started or responded to a topic in any other way.
I on the other hand have criticized my goverment on many occasions and would be allot more if I didn&#39;t have constantly defend her from outright lies, innuendo and outrageous insults.
I think you would be very surprised&#33;

If I hurled the same amount of insults (and I&#39;m only talking about insults here) at your country or any other country for that matter, I would be assailed from all directions.
Maybe even banned from the board&#33;
Do you ever start a non anti US topic in here?
Hell, some you people are so anti US that topics started that have nothing to do with the US are turned into ones pretty quickly.
I&#39;m not even going to directly respond to your retort because the content is obviously skewed to one thought and one thought alone-
How can I bash the US today?
MKULTRA/COINTELPRO (http://controlledamerica.com/)
Whistleblower (http://www.angelfire.com/extreme/harassment/index.html)


Btw, Just because you can show weapons exist doesn&#39;t mean a whole lot.

[echidna]

S&A :: please be clear about what you are saying

it is clear to anyone who reads what i write that i am critical of the USA

but all i have done in this thread is ask questions about policies you have claimed to support

please specify what the insults are that you claim i make

your continued refusal to answer any of these questions without attacking the questioner leads me to believe that you cannot answer them [so i&#39;m waiting to hear from j2k4]
if you can, why not try to convince me rather than continuing to avoid the topic?

i specifically sought to answer your queries of my post, should i now regret wasting my time? or don&#39;t you believe US &#39;CentCom&#39; about the cluster munitions?

[hobbes]

Echidna,

I think what S&A is saying that your post today is the same as your post yesterday and the day before. You continously hurl stones from behind your bush (he he), your religion, nationality and your ethnic backround conspicuously concealed. These are all pertinent bits of info, in order to under your biases.

We, on the other hand, stand out here flat footed as Americans, as we are asked to justify every fart that comes out of Bushes ass. We are not consulted on the type of weapons the military should use, we only vaguely know that our President and military are present to protect the future of America.

We know that we are not perfect, point taken. S&A feels that he would be more vocal in his complaints about our government if he were not put in the defensive all the time.

The article you posted had a definite slant, no effort was made by the author to be objective. It was amatuerish in its reliance on stock response, platitudes, and partial truths.

The annoying aspect is the we know you are aware of this too. I am not saying that the author was incorrect, but rather his obvious bias was intentional to draw ire from the American reader. Had his piece been more objectively constructed, I might have seen his thoughts as constructive and worthy of thoughtful consideration and discussion. He just wanted to piss people off, plain and simple.

Let me cut this short before I lose my job. S&A is basically sick of your one-trick pony act. You post the same thing over and over. He will admit, I will admit that our country has no halo, we are willing to hear you complaints, but it appears that your agenda is to hide in annonymity and cast your barbs.

We want some new tricks.



edit: I could explain why I find the article amateurish when time permits, but this article is really a symptom and not the disease. The disease is basically that you are pissed off that a country with an agenda different from yours has such power, and you are unable to do anything about it, except in the catharsis your anti-American posts bring you.

[slaphappy]

Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@1 July 2003 - 07:43
Btw, Just because you can show weapons exist doesn&#39;t mean a whole lot.
Tell that to Bush and Blair who took us to war on the premise that certain weapons (WMD) did/do exist. A premise which looks more like a lie as each day goes by.

Slappy.

[Rat Faced]

Echidna,

The easy answer would be to say that "Soft Targets" are people and "Hard Targets" are buildings and equipment.

In actual fact the terms have been changed and developed somewhat.

A Soft Target is now anything with inadequate defense against the weapon being used...ie All Civilian Targets are "Soft Targets", whether they are "Hard" or "Soft"...because they have No Defence.

Reserve Forces and Careers Offices are also "Soft" as they have inadequate defence against attack, usually...as do most Military Bases in peacetime.


Cluster Bombs were ORIGINALLY DESIGNED to take out airfields...they scatter bomblets that caused massive damage to an airstrip, making it impossible for aircraft to take off or land, due to the craters (which are relatively small, but they dont have to be big for an airstripto be neutralized)

They were then further developed to take out "Areas" of enemy concentration, killing people that werent in Armour, and neutralizing the said armour (its very rarely destroyed by cluster bombs, but is imobilized...hence Neutralized). These cluster bombs spread over a larger area with smaller bomblets, as there are more of them in the same size of delivery system.


If used in a FIBUA environment (ie Urban) the nature of the weapon is such that a lot of "Collateral" damage will occur...ie small explosions over a wide area...however there will be huge areas not touched, due to the shelter given by the buildings.

ie: a lot of destruction, without necessarily touching the target...in effect the original meaning wll have effect...its a "Hard" target.

If the location of the weapons are known then airstrikes, or conventional Artillery/Mortar are much more effective, in that the detruction will be contained (although a lot more of it, in that contained area)

However, the best weapon to use in a FIBUA by far...is the poor squaddie with his rifle, supported by armour if possible.


I did try to find links to Military Jargon for you, however put "Soft Target" in Google, and you&#39;ll get pages and pages of terrorist reports from newspapers.

Put "Military Jargon" in, and you&#39;ll get Joke sites, and newspaper reports on the Gulf Conflicts.....to be quite honest, i havent got the time.

Trust my nearly 20 years in The Royal Artillery on this one ;)

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I think what S&A is saying that your post today is the same as your post yesterday and the day before. You continously hurl stones from behind your bush (he he), your religion, nationality and your ethnic backround conspicuously concealed. These are all pertinent bits of info, in order to under your biases.[/b]

A mans religion, nationality and ethnic backround should have no bearing on the validity of his arguments. They are either right or wrong, logical or illogical, true or false. I dont see how bringing personal issues into it will clarify the debate. I also dont see anyones posts changing wildly from day to day so I cant understand why you expect echidna&#39;s to change. If they did he would probably be accused of inconsistency and not knowing his own mind.


Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>we are asked to justify every fart that comes out of Bushes ass[/b]

It seems to me that you guys insist on justifying every little fart. I can only assume that conceding even the most elementary point constitutes treason.


Originally posted by hobbes
The article you posted had a definite slant, no effort was made by the author to be objective. It was amatuerish in its reliance on stock response, platitudes, and partial truths.

On the contrary...


Originally posted by article
John Pilger is a renowned journalist and documentary film-maker. A war correspondent and ZNet Commentator, his writings have appeared in numerous magazines, and newspapers such as the Daily Mirror, the Guardian, the Independent, New Statesman, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, and other newspapers and periodicals around the world. His books include Heroes (2001) Hidden Agendas (1998) and Distant Voices (1994).

Mr Pilger did take a position as do most journalists, especially the conservative ones. I dont see what the problem is as long as the facts are correct and the arguments are logical which in this case, they are.

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@
Let me cut this short before I lose my job. S&A is basically sick of your one-trick pony act.[/quote]

Some of us are also getting sick of the one-trick pony act of blind patriotism, defend/justify everything and condemn anyone who disagrees with you as being anti-american.

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
The disease is basically that you are pissed off that a country with an agenda different from yours has such power, and you are unable to do anything about it, except in the catharsis your anti-American posts bring you. [/quote]

The disease is the worlds only superpower who feel, nay know, they can do what they want, when they want and to whom they want. If this involves lying to start a war, breaking international law etc.. so be it. Your right that most of the US public is "vaguely aware" of whats going on but even when you show them proof that the coalition used cluster bombs on civilian targets they dismiss it as Anti-Americanism. This has been clearly shown in this thread. As for protecting the US from Iraq thats laughable. Every day that goes by without WMD being found just raises the &#39;comedy&#39; value.

Just to allay your fears of Anti_Americanism I would like to point out I have alot of sympathy for the US soldiers in Iraq. Many of them are scared kids who only joined up to get an education/trade and are now being killed in an unjustified and illegal occupation.

You should also bear in mind that the UK Gvt is guilty of many of the same charges we bring to bear upon the American Gvt. The article itself strongly criticises Tony Blair. The difference is that UK citizens like myself dont have a reflex action to justify everything and anything and we dont assume criticism of our Gvt is Anti-British in nature. If we could get that in return from our US cousins there wouldnt be so much bad feeling everytime these issues come up.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by slaphappy+1 July 2003 - 13:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (slaphappy &#064; 1 July 2003 - 13:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-ShockAndAwe^i^@1 July 2003 - 07:43
Btw, Just because you can show weapons exist doesn&#39;t mean a whole lot.
Tell that to Bush and Blair who took us to war on the premise that certain weapons (WMD) did/do exist. A premise which looks more like a lie as each day goes by.

Slappy.[/b][/quote]
A few observations:

I am more than a bit pissed-off our remaining forces in Iraq are so short-staffed, and, for the time being, tactically bereft.

As a stand alone statement, the above is sufficiently clear that I should not be called upon to expand, justify, propound, quantify or qualify it.

Bush and Blair "took us to war" based on the FACT Saddam had WMD.

At least, fact to the extent supportable by Saddam&#39;s own statements, AND in the opinions of the ENTIRE SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS, that most beloved and reliable of international institutions, in which resides the confidence of the WHOLE WORLD (except the U.S.).

That is the fact:

All those of you who live in countries signatory to Resolution 1441 should take up your concerns with your own governments; otherwise you should appeal to the I.C.C. in Belguim.

If available evidence was good enough then, why not now?

Why would Saddam fail to submit proof, or give up his WMD?

With the time Saddam was allowed by your precious United Nations, Saddam could easily have hidden his WMD in such a way as to render them almost impossible to find, absent information as to their whereabouts-in fact, he could be moving about right now with substantial amounts of precurser materials in powdered form (he had this ability also). He could even be using them as a perverted currency to procure accomodations.

[Rat Faced]

All those of you who live in countries signatory to Resolution 1441 should take up your concerns with your own governments; otherwise you should appeal to the I.C.C. in Belguim.



As said before, its only the US/UK that interpreted that resolution to mean "Military Force"...none of the other signatories did, which means basically that is not the spirit of the resolution they signed.


Any appeal to the ICC would be fruitless, as the USA has not ratified the ICC and ignores it....again, probably because certain well known US "diplomats" would be called before it...and im not talking about the current administration.

[evilbagpuss]

Im glad you brought up resolution 1441 j2k4.

Can you show us where it states explicitly that Iraq will be invaded on non-compliance please?

U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm)

It states that Iraq will face "serious consequences" but does not specify what these will be. The main thrust of 1441 was to promote inspections which is what the rest of the world wanted to do.

[clocker]

Echidna
" what are the reasons for supporting these deadly follies?"


EBP
"You should also bear in mind that the UK Gvt is guilty of many of the same charges we bring to bear upon the American Gvt. The article itself strongly criticises Tony Blair. The difference is that UK citizens like myself dont have a reflex action to justify everything and anything and we dont assume criticism of our Gvt is Anti-British in nature. If we could get that in return from our US cousins there wouldnt be so much bad feeling everytime these issues come up. "

Now I&#39;m confused.
Echidna did ask for a response to a fairly inflammatory article, and, when provided, you want to jump on the repondees for being too touchy?

What did you expect, exactly?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@1 July 2003 - 16:32

All those of you who live in countries signatory to Resolution 1441 should take up your concerns with your own governments; otherwise you should appeal to the I.C.C. in Belguim.



As said before, its only the US/UK that interpreted that resolution to mean "Military Force"...none of the other signatories did, which means basically that is not the spirit of the resolution they signed.


Any appeal to the ICC would be fruitless, as the USA has not ratified the ICC and ignores it....again, probably because certain well known US "diplomats" would be called before it...and im not talking about the current administration.
The signatories, by signing 1441, vouched their belief Saddam possessed WMD, which was my point.

EBP-I assume you can verify this without my help.

One need not be too generous in parsing my last post to grant this; I mentioned nothing about the use of military force, the use for which burden, I&#39;m sure, the U.S. consents to bear.

I hereby exculpate Tony Blair.

Please do not draw any conclusion as to the balkiness of my posting; the board it giving me trouble-although I suppose even that is open to question, yes?

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by clocker
Now I&#39;m confused.
Echidna did ask for a response to a fairly inflammatory article, and, when provided, you want to jump on the repondees for being too touchy?

What did you expect, exactly?


You quoted me but I dont think you read what I said. My quote answered the question you asked immediately afterwards.

I dont consider the article to be inflammatory at all. The author criticises my Gvt as well and I can respond without getting &#39;touchy&#39;. This is what Im talking about when I highlighted the difference between the average US citizens response to criticism of their Gvt and your average UK citizens response.

Getting &#39;touchy&#39; is usually a substitute for not being able to produce a valid argument to counter the other persons point.

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@1 July 2003 - 21:30
A mans religion, nationality and ethnic backround should have no bearing on the validity of his arguments. They are either right or wrong, logical or illogical, true or false. I dont see how bringing personal issues into it will clarify the debate...


On the contrary, knowing such things allows an understanding (or, in some instances, a recognition) of which bias one possesses, in order to take it into consideration with the arguments that are being presented. Although, it is unfortunate that to you everything is either right or wrong, logical or illogical, true or false.


Agent orange may be the only facts here, and I mean maybe.

Once again, on the contrary. ;) I was going to find some relevant portions from a National Geographic issued last year, which came complete with some rather gruesome pictures, but I have yet to find it. It did go into detail about the aftermath of using Agent Orange in Vietnam. Unfortunately, I&#39;ve National Geographics dating back to 1960, and I haven&#39;t catalogued them by year yet. It may be a while.

:ninja:

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The signatories, by signing 1441, vouched their belief Saddam possessed WMD, which was my point.

EBP-I assume you can verify this without my help.[/b]

So how do you explain the need for inspections then? Belief and proof are 2 different things. You also referred to it as FACT not a belief in your previous post. You cant have it both ways.


Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>One need not be too generous in parsing my last post to grant this; I mentioned nothing about the use of military force, the use for which burden, I&#39;m sure, the U.S. consents to bear.[/b]

You did mention the use of military force.


Originally posted by j2k4

Bush and Blair "took us to war" based on the FACT Saddam had WMD.

Fact? Belief? The need for inspections as stated in 1441? This is all getting rather mixed up isnt it?

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
I hereby exculpate Tony Blair.[/quote]

Errm Im sure Mr Blair is pleased you have cleared him of any blame... :unsure:

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Please do not draw any conclusion as to the balkiness of my posting; the board it giving me trouble-although I suppose even that is open to question, yes?[/quote]

No.. the board seems rather sluggish for me as well... I cant recall criticising your balkiness or accusing you of lying about the responsiveness of the board at your end.

I think you need to take a step back and breath for a couple of seconds friend. I hope you&#39;ll forgive me for saying this but your posts seem a bit well weird at the moment. I mean the parts that dont refer to the Iraq conflict.

[hobbes]

EPB:

A mans religion, nationality and ethnic backround should have no bearing on the validity of his arguments. They are either right or wrong, logical or illogical, true or false. I dont see how bringing personal issues into it will clarify the debate. I also dont see anyones posts changing wildly from day to day so I cant understand why you expect echidna&#39;s to change. If they did he would probably be accused of inconsistency and not knowing his own mind.



It seems to me that you guys insist on justifying every little fart. I can only assume that conceding even the most elementary point constitutes treason.

Being upfront about ones potential biases gives the reader an context in which to "couch" a post. If Echidna were a Catholic priest in Boston versus a member of the Taliban in Germany, I think we would view his posts a little differently.

I was rather disappointed when Harvard refused to give me an honorary degree. I explained to them that I was a super-genius and I had a note right there in my pocket from my Mother to prove it&#33;


As to the truth, who defines it. I see it more as observing a "situation", couching in the context of your life experiences, and creating your reality out of the situation.
A person who has been abused all his life will cower at the sight of a raised palm, fearing a slap, while another may view this a same gesture as a friendly greeting. So the "truth" is in the intent of the person raising his hand, and the perception created by the viewer.


So, most of the time we are dealing with perceptions and not truths. That is, in fact, why i post here. The more perspectives I can relate to, or understand, the more likely I am to find common ground with an individual.
That is why I think that certain information is relevant here. It all goes back to what is right, not who is right. The road to truth is paved by credibility, I am often wrong, but I never deceive.



I take great offense at being classed as a defender of farts. I have a long history here of being the skeptical observer and have been openly critical of my government dating back to "Who cares about the Iraqi people".

The difference, really, is that Echidna simply does one thing, post anti-American threads. S&A feels attacked and defends. After all, the article posted was rather blistering.

How would you like to come here everyday and find a sparkling clean pro-America post with "we&#39;re #1" to finish each thread. First, it would irritate you due to it&#39;s lack of objectivity, then you would get frustrated because I just keep &#39;em coming. You would say, "Alright, already Hobbes, we get your perspective, do you have anything else you can talk about?"



I am aware of the authors reputation, but my opinion stands. That article was written to inflame, not inform.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss+1 July 2003 - 17:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss &#064; 1 July 2003 - 17:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The signatories, by signing 1441, vouched their belief Saddam possessed WMD, which was my point.

EBP-I assume you can verify this without my help.[/b]

So how do you explain the need for inspections then? Belief and proof are 2 different things. You also referred to it as FACT not a belief in your previous post. You cant have it both ways.


Originally posted by j2k4
One need not be too generous in parsing my last post to grant this; I mentioned nothing about the use of military force, the use for which burden, I&#39;m sure, the U.S. consents to bear.

You did mention the use of military force.


Originally posted by j2k4

Bush and Blair "took us to war" based on the FACT Saddam had WMD.

Fact? Belief? The need for inspections as stated in 1441? This is all getting rather mixed up isnt it?

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
I hereby exculpate Tony Blair.

Errm Im sure Mr Blair is pleased you have cleared him of any blame... :unsure:

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Please do not draw any conclusion as to the balkiness of my posting; the board it giving me trouble-although I suppose even that is open to question, yes?[/quote]

No.. the board seems rather sluggish for me as well... I cant recall criticising your balkiness or accusing you of lying about the responsiveness of the board at your end.

I think you need to take a step back and breath for a couple of seconds friend. I hope you&#39;ll forgive me for saying this but your posts seem a bit well weird at the moment. I mean the parts that dont refer to the Iraq conflict.[/b][/quote]
QUOTE (j2k4)
The signatories, by signing 1441, vouched their belief Saddam possessed WMD, which was my point.

EBP-I assume you can verify this without my help.



So how do you explain the need for inspections then? Belief and proof are 2 different things. You also referred to it as FACT not a belief in your previous post. You cant have it both ways.
Read this very carefully: THE SIGNATORIES, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR HAVING SIGNED RES. 1441, VOUCHSAFED THEIR BELIEF IRAQ HAD WMD. I am not attempting to have it two ways.


QUOTE (j2k4)
One need not be too generous in parsing my last post to grant this; I mentioned nothing about the use of military force, the use for which burden, I&#39;m sure, the U.S. consents to bear.



You did mention the use of military force.
Only as it related to the U.S. and U.K.-no matter how hard you try, you cannot twist my meaning to construe it to include the Security Council at large.

QUOTE (j2k4)

Bush and Blair "took us to war" based on the FACT Saddam had WMD.



Fact? Belief? The need for inspections as stated in 1441? This is all getting rather mixed up isnt it?
See above.

QUOTE (j2k4)
I hereby exculpate Tony Blair.



Errm Im sure Mr Blair is pleased you have cleared him of any blame...
No reason he should bear our guilt; after all, we played him for a sucker.

QUOTE (j2k4)
Please do not draw any conclusion as to the balkiness of my posting; the board it giving me trouble-although I suppose even that is open to question, yes?



No.. the board seems rather sluggish for me as well... I cant recall criticising your balkiness or accusing you of lying about the responsiveness of the board at your end.
Actually, that was sarcasm, how could you, of all people, miss that?
I think you need to take a step back and breath for a couple of seconds friend. I hope you&#39;ll forgive me for saying this but your posts seem a bit well weird at the moment. I mean the parts that dont refer to the Iraq conflict.

Unlike you, I am only weird on purpose.

[slaphappy]

Originally posted by j2k4@1 July 2003 - 21:25
Saddam could easily have hidden his WMD in such a way as to render them almost impossible to find ... he could be moving about right now with substantial amounts of precurser materials in powdered form (he had this ability also). He could even be using them as a perverted currency to procure accomodations.
This all sounds a like vague conjecture - "could" etc.

Do you seriously mean that the US with all its resources (special forces, technology, satellite imagery, information &#39;extracted&#39; from detainees at Guantanamo and Bagram airfield etc.) cannot find these WMDs if they exist?

Do you really mean that Saddam is still so influential that he has the power organisation to move these things around and trade in them? And all under the noses of the US coalition? If the answer is &#39;yes&#39; then it would appear the the US coalition is nowhere near as in control as it has been saying.

Of course, the other simpler explanation is that the WMDs do not exist. Nor did they when the bombs started falling onto Baghdad.

Slappy.

[evilbagpuss]

j2k4.... your all over the place..

Your original post stated that there was enough evidence to invade Iraq based on 1441. Now... well now I just cant see where your going at all.


Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Read this very carefully: THE SIGNATORIES, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR HAVING SIGNED RES. 1441, VOUCHSAFED THEIR BELIEF IRAQ HAD WMD. I am not attempting to have it two ways.[/b]

Yes but belief isnt enough to invade. They wanted proof which is why 1441 called for more inspections. And you are trying to have it both ways. Fact or belief at the time of 1441? Make your mind up.


Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Only as it related to the U.S. and U.K.-no matter how hard you try, you cannot twist my meaning to construe it to include the Security Council at large.
[/b]

Look at your original post. Note the bit in capitals.Your twisting your own words.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
Bush and Blair "took us to war" based on the FACT Saddam had WMD.

At least, fact to the extent supportable by Saddam&#39;s own statements, AND in the opinions of the ENTIRE SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS, that most beloved and reliable of international institutions, in which resides the confidence of the WHOLE WORLD (except the U.S.).
[/quote]

Your main point is related to the Security Council at large. You&#39;ve lost your way through the flames my friend.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Unlike you, I am only weird on purpose. [/quote]

Go on show us your true colours :) You always start off like Mr Civilized but you can rarely keep it up for more than 5 posts. Wipe the froth from your mouth, put down that can of beer, sober up and come back in a few hours time.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by slaphappy@1 July 2003 - 18:29

Do you seriously mean that the US with all its resources (special forces, technology, satellite imagery, information &#39;extracted&#39; from detainees at Guantanamo and Bagram airfield etc.) cannot find these WMDs if they exist?

Do you really mean that Saddam is still so influential that he has the power organisation to move these things around and trade in them?&nbsp; And all under the noses of the US coalition? If the answer is &#39;yes&#39; then it would appear the the US coalition is nowhere near as in control as it has been saying.

Of course, the other simpler explanation is that the WMDs do not exist. Nor did they when the bombs started falling onto Baghdad.

Slappy.
Yes, I seriously mean that, AND:

There is no doubt Saddam still has influence in an area (the mideast) which still, by and large favors him over the U.S.

If you had read my earlier post, you would have noted my point that the entire Security council was convinced Saddam had WMD; are they now "admitting" they were in error, as you insist the U.S. is?

Clear enough?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss+1 July 2003 - 18:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss &#064; 1 July 2003 - 18:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>j2k4.... your all over the place..

Your original post stated that there was enough evidence to invade Iraq based on 1441. Now... well now I just cant see where your going at all.


Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Read this very carefully: THE SIGNATORIES, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR HAVING SIGNED RES. 1441, VOUCHSAFED THEIR BELIEF IRAQ HAD WMD. I am not attempting to have it two ways.[/b]

Yes but belief isnt enough to invade. They wanted proof which is why 1441 called for more inspections. And you are trying to have it both ways. Fact or belief at the time of 1441? Make your mind up.


Originally posted by j2k4
Only as it related to the U.S. and U.K.-no matter how hard you try, you cannot twist my meaning to construe it to include the Security Council at large.


Look at your original post. Note the bit in capitals.Your twisting your own words.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
Bush and Blair "took us to war" based on the FACT Saddam had WMD.

At least, fact to the extent supportable by Saddam&#39;s own statements, AND in the opinions of the ENTIRE SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS, that most beloved and reliable of international institutions, in which resides the confidence of the WHOLE WORLD (except the U.S.).


Your main point is related to the Security Council at large. You&#39;ve lost your way through the flames my friend.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Unlike you, I am only weird on purpose. [/quote]

Go on show us your true colours :) You always start off like Mr Civilized but you can rarely keep it up for more than 5 posts. Wipe the froth from your mouth, put down that can of beer, sober up and come back in a few hours time.[/b][/quote]
j2k4.... your all over the place..

Just following you, pal.

Your original post stated that there was enough evidence to invade Iraq based on 1441. Now... well now I just cant see where your going at all.


QUOTE (j2k4)
Read this very carefully: THE SIGNATORIES, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR HAVING SIGNED RES. 1441, VOUCHSAFED THEIR BELIEF IRAQ HAD WMD. I am not attempting to have it two ways.



Yes but belief isnt enough to invade. They wanted proof which is why 1441 called for more inspections. And you are trying to have it both ways. Fact or belief at the time of 1441? Make your mind up.


QUOTE (j2k4)
Only as it related to the U.S. and U.K.-no matter how hard you try, you cannot twist my meaning to construe it to include the Security Council at large.




Look at your original post. Note the bit in capitals.Your twisting your own words.

Wrong again. The capitalized section you reference does not contain the words "military" or "invade/invasion"; what ARE you reading?


QUOTE (j2k4)
Bush and Blair "took us to war" based on the FACT Saddam had WMD.

At least, fact to the extent supportable by Saddam&#39;s own statements, AND in the opinions of the ENTIRE SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS, that most beloved and reliable of international institutions, in which resides the confidence of the WHOLE WORLD (except the U.S.).




Your main point is related to the Security Council at large. You&#39;ve lost your way through the flames my friend.

Take the liberties you will, EBP, but I choose the main points in my threads, NOT you.


QUOTE (j2k4)
Unlike you, I am only weird on purpose.



Go on show us your true colours You always start off like Mr Civilized but you can rarely keep it up for more than 5 posts. Wipe the froth from your mouth, put down that can of beer, sober up and come back in a few hours time.

I am sober as a judge. I have a proposal, EBP-it is your contention that my posts lack clarity and reason; that I obfuscate my "true" leanings, am inconsistant- that I am uncivilized, yes?

If this is so, please post separately in the affirmative.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Wrong again. The capitalized section you reference does not contain the words "military" or "invade/invasion"; what ARE you reading?
[/b]

No but its justifying military action isnt it? Or is it? Have a look and tell me what you think.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Bush and Blair "took us to war" based on the FACT Saddam had WMD.

At least, fact to the extent supportable by Saddam&#39;s own statements, AND in the opinions of the ENTIRE SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS, that most beloved and reliable of international institutions, in which resides the confidence of the WHOLE WORLD (except the U.S.).[/quote]

ahh yes there it is "Bush and Blair took us to war based on the FACT Saddam had WMD." and you then go on to justify that "fact" with the opinions of the security council.

wheeee&#33;&#33; And now we come round full circle again&#33;

The security council clearly wasnt convinced enough as they called for more inspections and wouldnt make explicit the threat of invasion in 1441.

I would answer the rest of your post but I&#39;ve allowed you to muddy the waters enough already. Lets stick to this and see if we can convert this flaming session into an intelligent discussion again.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by echidna+29 June 2003 - 13:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (echidna &#064; 29 June 2003 - 13:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>click here to read the quoted original (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=49&ItemID=3812)
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=49&ItemID=3812
Bush&#39;s Vietnam

by John Pilger
New Statesman
June 22, 2003


This "hidden" effect is hardly new. A recent study at Columbia University in New York has found that the spraying of Agent Orange and other herbicides on Vietnam was up to four times as great as previously estimated. Agent Orange contained dioxin, one of the deadliest poisons known. In what they first called Operation Hades, then changed to the friendlier Operation Ranch Hand, the Americans in Vietnam destroyed, in some 10,000 "missions" to spray Agent Orange, almost half the forests of southern Vietnam, and countless human lives. It was the most insidious and perhaps the most devastating use of a chemical weapon of mass destruction ever. Today, Vietnamese children continue to be born with a range of deformities, or they are stillborn, or the foetuses are aborted.

The use of uranium-tipped munitions evokes the catastrophe of Agent Orange. In the first Gulf war in 1991, the Americans and British used 350 tonnes of depleted uranium. According to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, quoting an international study, 50 tonnes of DU, if inhaled or ingested, would cause 500,000 deaths. Most of the victims are civilians in southern Iraq. It is estimated that 2,000 tonnes were used during the latest attack.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Pilger is a renowned journalist and documentary film-maker. A war correspondent and ZNet Commentator, his writings have appeared in numerous magazines, and newspapers such as the Daily Mirror, the Guardian, the Independent, New Statesman, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, and other newspapers and periodicals around the world. His books include Heroes (2001) Hidden Agendas (1998) and Distant Voices (1994).
[/b][/quote]
I selected this paragraph to illustrate my point about a lack of objectivity.

Here is is trying to make a parallel between "agent orange" and "uranium tipped missles". The point being that the uranium, like agent orange before it, may cause more harm to humans that originally anticipated.

I have no problem with this parallel, I do have problem with his means of expression.


He refers to agent orange as a chemical weapon of mass destruction. This is an obvious "buzz word" and totally misrepresents that agent orange is a herbicide.

We have discussed what constitutes a WMD before (declaring that wet soil was a WMD in it&#39;s time). The salient point to be drawn is that it not the actual device used, but the intent of the device that defines it&#39;s WMD status (or cars could also be a WMD).

Now agent orange did cause health issues, but its intent was to kill plants not people. It was not designed, like nerve gas, simply to kill people. Many American Vets today still get their Agent Orange follow-up exams, as we were exposed, as were the locals. I resent his implied parallel that our use of agent orange was no different than Saddams&#39; use of chemical weapons on his own people.

He goes on to describe birth defects in Vietnamese children, even today. Well, birth defects occur worldwide, daily, as do miscarraiges and stillborn children. A responsible reporter should site a statistical difference between Vietnam birth defect rates vs other countries ( or pre-post agent orange) to validate these claims. He does not do this.

He produces fanciful numbers about how many could die from DU exposure. He makes no attempt to clarify why we use it (to penetrate tanks and bunkers) or note that although controversial, it is NATO approved.

I think objectivity is defined by noting both the pros and cons, then deciding how one outweighs the other. I would have been more inclined to think about what he was saying if he hadn&#39;t muddied the facts with unsupported data and sensationalism to justify his opinion.

[clocker]

I wanna see hobbes&#39; reply
seems like every time we get to a new page the first post is in limbo until a second post gets added

[echidna]

1st :: thanx RF & clocker



Being upfront about ones potential biases gives the reader an context in which to "couch" a post. If Echidna were a Catholic priest in Boston versus a member of the Taliban in Germany, I think we would view his posts a little differently


all that is plain about &#39;you guys&#39; is your nationality.
i have no idea of the colour of your skin, what god[s] you might worship (the alcohol references do hint that halal is not your mode of eating) or what wedding tackle you&#39;ve got in your pants.
yet in an effort to be &#39;up-front&#39; and to make the existence of google a bit more redundant [obviously nobody can work out what an echidna is], i was born in the country called australia and just to be completely sure and to go beyond what you have made plain to me about your flesh-world self i was trained as a roman catholic for much of my childhood
i&#39;m sure everyone will now rush to declare their religious affiliations [not]

basically i share your reasons for posting here, ie.


The more perspectives I can relate to, or understand, the more likely I am to find common ground with an individual.
[QUOTE]

i want to understand your acceptance or tolerance of your nations behaviour, all i get is very hostile counter-query. i am only assuming that you&#39;re kinda OK with what america is up to in west asia, because you are just questioning my asking of the question rather than telling me what you think of your presidents decisions.
my position has been plain and consistent, i won&#39;t apologise for have serious issues with the USAs foreign policy, but not many americans seem to want to express an opinion

[QUOTE=hobbes, Posted on 2 July 2003 - 09:19]
How would you like to come here everyday and find a sparkling clean pro-America post with "we&#39;re #1" to finish each thread. First, it would irritate you due to it&#39;s lack of objectivity, then you would get frustrated because I just keep &#39;em coming. You would say, "Alright, already Hobbes, we get your perspective, do you have anything else you can talk about?"


please note that this section is titled &#39;Ongoing US/Coalition vs. Iraq War Discussion&#39; if i have other things to talk about on the board i will do it in another section, if i posted pro-US activity threads then i would be being dishonest.

equally if S&A gets too riled reading non pro-US opinions [as you seem to as well] why read a section called &#39;Ongoing US/Coalition vs. Iraq War Discussion&#39; it is assured to be polarised vitriolic and complex, so if you can&#39;t deal with heat why come into the kitchen?

in terms of pro-US threads North Korean War: Yet another
America&#39;s Reasons: For attacking the Middle-East
U.s. Foreign Policy: What would YOU do?
War Was A Good Thing...
Amnesty International: accuses US
[i don&#39;t know where jerry spingers senate thread falls]


PS :: S&A what is the deal with these links;
MKULTRA/COINTELPRO (http://controlledamerica.com/)
Whistleblower (http://www.angelfire.com/extreme/harassment/index.html)
[i only wish i could have read the article at MKULTRA/COINTELPRO (http://controlledamerica.com/) on &#39;C.I.A.-Satanic
Ritual Abuse&#39;]
i hope this isn&#39;t your idea of what qualifies;



I on the other hand have criticized my goverment on many occasions and would be allot more if I didn&#39;t have constantly defend her from outright lies, innuendo and outrageous insults.
I think you would be very surprised&#33;

:huh:

does anyone know why quote won&#39;t work? i can&#39;t be bothered trying to debug this now :: e

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>He refers to agent orange as a chemical weapon of mass destruction. This is an obvious "buzz word" and totally misrepresents that agent orange is a herbicide[/b]

Not really when you consider that "Agent Orange contained dioxin, one of the deadliest poisons known". If someone sprayed you with that stuff I think you&#39;d be more than justified in saying you were the victim of a chemical weapon.


Originally posted by hobbes@
He goes on to describe birth defects in Vietnamese children, even today. Well, birth defects occur worldwide, daily, as do miscarraiges and stillborn children. A responsible reporter should site a statistical difference between Vietnam birth defect rates vs other countries ( or pre-post agent orange) to validate these claims. He does not do this

I agree with your point about defects in Vietnamese children, he should provide statistics. Whoops&#33; Just read enchidnas latest post and realised the guy did provide a source after all.

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
He produces fanciful numbers about how many could die from DU exposure. He makes no attempt to clarify why we use it (to penetrate tanks and bunkers) or note that although controversial, it is NATO approved.[/quote]

This is where I think your being a little biased too. He produces figures produced by the " United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, quoting an international study" The UK AEE are hardly a bunch of cowboys. As for DU it has been classified as a WMD by the UN.

When you bear in mind that the UK/USA are meant to be civilized countries.. its pretty shocking.

Just for the record Im a UK citizen so I should be biased in favour of the coalition not against them.

[j2k4]

EBP-you failed to respond to my request-do you so contend?

Feel free to add any other failings on my part as you see fit.

As you have said: "I&#39;m waiting".

[evilbagpuss]

So... given the choice between dealing with this issue...(which I have already dealt with)


Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Wrong again. The capitalized section you reference does not contain the words "military" or "invade/invasion"; what ARE you reading?[/b]

and this one....

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
I am sober as a judge. I have a proposal, EBP-it is your contention that my posts lack clarity and reason; that I obfuscate my "true" leanings, am inconsistant- that I am uncivilized, yes?[/quote]

You choose the latter, very telling.... :rolleyes:

As hard as it may be for you to accept, I have very little interest in you as a person and alot more interest in events in Iraq.

Feel free to defend your arguments regarding Iraq. But... if you think Im going to go OT with discussions about you as an individual... think again :)

[echidna]

BTW :: i was born in the city where union carbide made the agent orange for US use in vietnam, words like terrorism and ideas like WMD are pretty unclear really, carpet bombing is pretty f#cking mass destruction from a &#39;conventional&#39; weapon, they about killing people in industrial numbers aren&#39;t they? and in the context of carpet bombing &#39;demorallisation&#39; is pretty much the same as &#39;terrorisation&#39;

Originally posted by hobbes+2 July 2003 - 10:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 2 July 2003 - 10:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
He goes on to describe birth defects in Vietnamese children, even today. Well, birth defects occur worldwide, daily, as do miscarraiges and stillborn children. A responsible reporter should site a statistical difference between Vietnam birth defect rates vs other countries ( or pre-post agent orange) to validate these claims. He does not do this.
[/b]
pilger quotes his source as &#39;A recent study at Columbia University in New York&#39;, it shouldn&#39;t be beyond an average high school student to check these facts

Originally posted by hobbes@2 July 2003 - 10:23

He produces fanciful numbers about how many could die from DU exposure. He makes no attempt to clarify why we use it (to penetrate tanks and bunkers) or note that although controversial, it is NATO approved.

fanciful numbers, once again referenced to an easily searched out organisation &#39;According to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority&#39;
once again it is used to try to kill or maim
[that sort of feeling toward a tank is a bit kinky, becarefull you don&#39;t hurt yourself]
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@2 July 2003 - 10:23

I think objectivity is defined by noting both the pros and cons, then deciding how one outweighs the other. I would have been more inclined to think about what he was saying if he hadn&#39;t muddied the facts with unsupported data and sensationalism to justify his opinion.[/quote]
what news services do you read? none i&#39;m familiar with,
please give me some examples of &#39;bias free&#39; or &#39;bias equal&#39; journalism
the well documented &#39;sensationalism&#39; of north american media is legendary, and the bias is often to close to propagandistic to bother discussing [ie. CNN, FOX]

Ed. typo :: e

[j2k4]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@1 July 2003 - 19:54
As hard as it may be for you to accept, I have very little interest in you as a person and alot more interest in events in Iraq.

Feel free to defend your arguments regarding Iraq. But... if you think Im going to go OT with discussions about you as an individual... think again :)
Just as I thought.

[hobbes]

Echidna, (pardon, I refrain from quoting for the time being as there are technical issues, apparently)

Don&#39;t you remember that I called you an "egg laying mammal" months ago. You never listen to me. :angry:
You have never used any typical Aussie lingo, so I figured you may live there but didn&#39;t come from there.

As for the forum, the title is dead. A poll on the off-topic page is looking for a new name. I&#39;m sorry you have felt so straight-jacketed by the name, feel free to discuss anything but Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake.

Who am I? Well, if you were observant you would already know from bits and pieces of other threads that I am an agnostic Texan (transplanted from Missouri- very important distinction from the native breed). I like long, hot wet kisses that last for hours and pleated pants. :blink:

[hobbes]

To Echi and EPB,

Yes Echi, from his phrasing it was unclear that he was still citing the article. Mea culpa. Little bit harsh, eh?

EPB- Dioxins are deadly but this was not recognized until after the Vietnam war. In fact, in 1982 the government had to buy out Times Beach, Missouri because of contamination. It stands today, a ghost town.

So, it was dropped to kill plants, not people.

The fanciful numbers I refer to describe a situation in which the Uranium is ingested or inhaled and this is not likely to occur to the average Iraqi, unless he is in a tank, hit by such a missle.

Anyway, where are the 350,000 dead from the Gulf War from DU?. There are conflicting reports on the consequences of DU and he picked something sensational.

My post made no comment on American media. You think that his bias is ok because you don&#39;t like "legendary" Fox bias. Two wrongs make a right? Have I ever lauded American media?

My post specifically states that his post is intentionally inflammatory, nothing else.

When I read a post I try to infer, was this meant to start a discussion or just to anger. If I wanted to start a discussion I would word things differently.

[echidna]

Originally posted by hobbes@2 July 2003 - 11:45
I like long, hot wet kisses that last for hours and pleated pants. :blink:
that&#39;s not nearly as kinky as penetrating tanks

sounds like a whole lot more fun though [apart from ironning the pleats]

my issue is that few who support the deployment will comment upon the situation and i am itchingly curious as to the feelings of americans about it.
i hear from colon powell and condaleeza(sic) rice each day, but not from you or him or her, you&#39;re just people with internet access like me except you&#39;ve got a very different perspective
i want to know what you thinking
but i get hassled for asking the question

with building bridges being so fraught and difficult it should be little wonder that there is mistrust and anxiety expressed toward the USA

[j2k4]

Originally posted by echidna@1 July 2003 - 21:26

with building bridges being so fraught and difficult it should be little wonder that there is mistrust and anxiety expressed toward the USA
Regardless of Hobbes&#39; preference for kisses, both he and I both are considered master bridge-builders.

We are somehow deficient, I guess, in coaxing people to traverse our spans of goodwill.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by echidna+2 July 2003 - 03:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (echidna @ 2 July 2003 - 03:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@2 July 2003 - 11:45
I like long, hot wet kisses that last for hours and pleated pants. :blink:
that&#39;s not nearly as kinky as penetrating tanks

sounds like a whole lot more fun though [apart from ironning the pleats]

my issue is that few who support the deployment will comment upon the situation and i am itchingly curious as to the feelings of americans about it.
i hear from colon powell and condaleeza(sic) rice each day, but not from you or him or her, you&#39;re just people with internet access like me except you&#39;ve got a very different perspective
i want to know what you thinking
but i get hassled for asking the question

with building bridges being so fraught and difficult it should be little wonder that there is mistrust and anxiety expressed toward the USA [/b][/quote]
I think you word a more reasonable post than the sources you quote. Continue to read your media, but rather than quote them, mull it over and present it in a way that you think will elicit input, rather than reactive defensivity.

[echidna]

Originally posted by hobbes@2 July 2003 - 12:22
My post made no comment on American media.&nbsp; You think that his bias is ok because you don&#39;t like "legendary" Fox bias. Two wrongs make a right?&nbsp; Have I ever lauded American media?

My post specifically states that his post is intentionally inflammatory, nothing else.

When I read a post I try to infer, was this meant to start a discussion or just to anger.&nbsp; If I wanted to start a discussion I would word things differently.
mea culpa II
i&#39;m what&#39;s called [here] a shit stirrer, meaning i [too]often play the devil&#39;s advocate to illicit responses

we all come from societies with adversarial courts and governmental systems i didn&#39;t think it would be too foreign a tactic

as to the media, what are examples of un-biased media? what do you read/listen_to/watch? i know well that two wrongs don&#39;t make a right, i just have never seen/heard media as you described it

two wrongs don&#39;t make a right but might is right and retaliation de rigeur

[hobbes]

This is what I posted on May 25th on the Filesharing, Socialist Activity thread.

"I personally think you are male, living in Australia (where else can you find an Echidna) but with Middle Eastern parents and religious influence(the symbol in your Avatar). You learned to speak English very young (your syntax is natural), indicating that you were probably born outside the homeland of your parents.

Actually I was joking about Australia, your use of English has a strong American influence. You could potentially live in the US, but your comments are more akin to an observer from afar. This places you in Europe somewhere.

I think you are left handed, single, over 30, and like long romantic walks in the park and post in the nude."


Are you still posting nude? Gross. Oh well, I HAVE (past tense) been known to penetrate a tank.

Night all, must work a double shift tomorrow (7am to 11pm) so that I can afford to be humilitated and insulted on this forum. :)

[slaphappy]

Originally posted by j2k4@1 July 2003 - 23:51
Clear enough?
Certainly is&#33; Perhaps more than you realise.

I say this because you tacitly admit that the US is not in control of Iraq (how else would Saddam be able organise and trade in WMDs?), and that the US is (despite all of it&#39;s resources) powerless to find the said weapons (assuming they exist).

Not much of a victory there then. It looks like a failure in terms of the stated war aim of neutralising Saddam and his arsenal.

Slappy.

[MagicNakor]

Wanting to see new posts..... :rolleyes:

:ninja:

[Barbarossa]

The whole thing stinks. If 1441 was enough of a mandate to send in the troops, why didn&#39;t they go in before Christmas? Why wait until they knew they were not going to get a second resolution, when time was running out because of the seasons, before deciding that 1441 gave them the so-called right to invade under international law?

They must think the rest of the world is as stupid as they are.. Everyone knows they pulled a dirty underhanded little stunt, but because no-one is strong enough to stand up to them, they&#39;re all pretending it never happened.

[Rat Faced]

A judge or magistrate will issue a search warrent on reasonable grounds that further investigation is needed, thats exactly what resolution 1441 was...nothing more than a search warrent.




Agent Orange was a herbicide, at concentrations of 20-40 times those allowed...AT THAT TIME. It was used mainly on wild plantlife (read jungle or whatever), however its been known since the mists of time that poisons that are otherwise harmless in small doses, are leathal in large doses.

This does make it a chemical weapon....however, I dont believe that it was used delibratly as such, just that those that made the decisions were incredibly ignorant.

Agent Blue however, also used in Vietnam, was used exclusively to kill crops...ie the food supply of the enemy. This means that Agent Blue was used delibratly as a Chemical Weapon, in its fullest sense....a weapon does not necessarily kill directly. Some of the best ones are those that tie up personell that would otherwise be attacking you....in this case forcing them to hunt/plant more crops to feed themselves.


Agent Orange seems to grab all the news...however there were a number of chemicals in use: Agent Orange, Agent White, Agent Blue, (all herbicides), Malathion (insecticide), CS etc etc.

Notice, the only one above that is designed to be anti personnel..is CS, still in use today by police forces all over the world, as well as the military.

Agent Orange by itself is leathal...the combination of all these chemicals is more leathal (although most other ones, on there own, wouldnt kill anyone...but would incapacitate them)

.....I&#39;d be scared if i thought it was all deliberate. :unsure:


There is also plenty of evidence and has been for years, about the long term effects of Depleted Uranium tipped ammo.

All of it bad, a lot of it from the Pentagon and its own scientists.



Just to keep this going ;)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by slaphappy+2 July 2003 - 03:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (slaphappy @ 2 July 2003 - 03:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@1 July 2003 - 23:51
Clear enough?
Certainly is&#33; Perhaps more than you realise.

I say this because you tacitly admit that the US is not in control of Iraq (how else would Saddam be able organise and trade in WMDs?), and that the US is (despite all of it&#39;s resources) powerless to find the said weapons (assuming they exist).

Not much of a victory there then. It looks like a failure in terms of the stated war aim of neutralising Saddam and his arsenal.

Slappy. [/b][/quote]
Worry not, we&#39;ll let you know when the job is finis.

[slaphappy]

Originally posted by j2k4@2 July 2003 - 20:16
Worry not, we&#39;ll let you know when the job is finis.
:D Yeah right. You do that. I won&#39;t be holding my breath waiting.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by slaphappy
Yeah right. You do that. I won&#39;t be holding my breath waiting.

Perhaps he can arrange an email triggered by a CNN news broadcast? Im sure our great-great grandchildren will want to know as soon as WMD are found. :lol:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss+2 July 2003 - 20:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss &#064; 2 July 2003 - 20:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-slaphappy
Yeah right. You do that. I won&#39;t be holding my breath waiting.

Perhaps he can arrange an email triggered by a CNN news broadcast? Im sure our great-great grandchildren will want to know as soon as WMD are found. :lol:[/b][/quote]
What is this.....CNN you speak of?

Is it something like the BBC?

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by j2k4
What is this.....CNN you speak of?

Is it something like the BBC?

Ahh Im really glad you brought that up :)

They both produce news reports. The similarity stops there.

In UK law the BBC must be impartial. During the Falklands war Margaret Thatcher went mad because they werent being "patriotic" enough.

Is there a law in the US that states that CNN must be impartial?

[j2k4]

QUOTE (j2k4)
What is this.....CNN you speak of?

Is it something like the BBC?



Ahh Im really glad you brought that up

Me, too.

They both produce news reports. The similarity stops there.

Agreed.

In UK law the BBC must be impartial. During the Falklands war Margaret Thatcher went mad because they werent being "patriotic" enough.

I hereby state the law fails to achieve it&#39;s intent.

Is there a law in the US that states that CNN must be impartial?

No, and if there were, it would be similarly ineffectual.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by EBP@
In UK law the BBC must be impartial. During the Falklands war Margaret Thatcher went mad because they werent being "patriotic" enough I hereby state the law fails to achieve it&#39;s intent.
[/b]

Are you going to offer any proof for that statement? I&#39;ve alluded to the Falklands war to prove my point. That was &#39;against&#39; the conservatives. Now look at the current situation with the BBC, they are accusing New Labour of "sexing up" the 2nd dossier on Iraq.

Perhaps you are right in respect that no-one can be 100% impartial, its impossible. But the BBC vs CNN?

<!--QuoteBegin-jools(pulp fiction)
ain&#39;t the same ballpark, ain&#39;t the same league, ain&#39;t even the same fuckin&#39; sport[/quote]

[clocker]

Alright, enough&#33;

This bickering over who is the most impartial news organization is ridiculous.
You two will never reach agreement, nor should you.

I would submit that without exception every news group in the world has been factually wrong several times about the events in Iraq. I offer the "looting of the National Museum " in Baghdad as an example. Everyone from the BBC to USA Today reported massive destruction and theft of Iraqi antiquities at the end of the &#39;official&#39; war. It now appears that most of the items feared lost were either moved for safekeeping by museum officials or hadn&#39;t even been in the museum since the first Gulf war in 1991. Undeniably looting occured, but it&#39;s prevalance was grotesquely overestimated on both sides of the Atlantic.

I think that we all tend to overestimate the credibility of news reportage based on our perception that new technology and &#39;embedded&#39; journalists make accuracy a foregone conclusion.
I think that both things only lead to the faster and more widespread dissemination of rumours (spelling intentional to placate our sensitive UK readers).

Personally, both the BBC and CNN ( or, in j2&#39;s honor- Fox News) have lost my interest.
I&#39;ll get my news from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
At least he knows he&#39;s full of crap.

[MagicNakor]

Nothing wrong with The Daily Show. I enjoy it myself. ;)

:ninja: