PDA

View Full Version : Uk Intelligence.



J'Pol
07-20-2003, 06:16 PM
What sort of leader when under pressure says that,

Actually one of the reasons we had for going to war, was based on intelligence supplied to me by the UK, and we believed it. If we were wrong going to war then it was the UK´s fault all the time.

If this is the way to treat your staunchest Ally, then I am confused on what the word loyalty means.

I'm sorry to have to say this but your president is anything but a Statesman. Frankly he has no class.

hobbes
07-20-2003, 06:54 PM
In my field of work, I am responsible for many different people, each of whom I am counting on, to perform their duties properly.

If someone screws up, it is MY fault or at least I am held accountable. I may recognize internally that a team individual messed up or mislead me, and I replace that person, but in the end, I, alone, must step forward and assume the failure.

This is the essence of leadership, ultimate responsibilty. Finger pointing is an internal process, not a public one. If Blair and Britain gave bad intelligence, Bush and Blair need to settle this amongst themselves. Bush must tell the American people that whatever comes from his mouth is his responsibilty.

billyfridge
07-20-2003, 09:12 PM
The buck passing hasn.t even started yet, and the poor british weapons expert,
won't be the first casualty either. You can bet the top dogs will come out of it squeaky clean and still attatched to their jobs, whilst lesser individuals will get the blame and lose theirs. so much for the old boys network. Still a loyal Brit billyfridge. ;)

chalkmongoose
07-21-2003, 03:17 AM
Wait... Why is America even THINKING of trusting the Brits? I mean, not to cause a fight, but didn't we kick their asses with a few muskets and a guy in a coonskin cap a couple of hundred years back? I mean, we pretty much embarrased them in front of the whole world, and all they got to do as punishment was burn our white house down in 1812.

MagicNakor
07-21-2003, 05:32 AM
:rolleyes:

:ninja:

3rd gen noob
07-21-2003, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by chalkmongoose@21 July 2003 - 04:17
Wait... Why is America even THINKING of trusting the Brits? I mean, not to cause a fight, but didn't we kick their asses with a few muskets and a guy in a coonskin cap a couple of hundred years back? I mean, we pretty much embarrased them in front of the whole world, and all they got to do as punishment was burn our white house down in 1812.
ffs

look, go and sit in the corner

stfu when you're trolling for an argument

a better question than yours would be why was is that british special forces were used in the gulf war to take out american fibre optic communication cables?
shouldn't the "superior" american seals have done the job?

J'Pol
07-21-2003, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by billyfridge@20 July 2003 - 22:12
The buck passing hasn.t even started yet, and the poor british weapons expert,
won't be the first casualty either. You can bet the top dogs will come out of it squeaky clean and still attatched to their jobs, whilst lesser individuals will get the blame and lose theirs. so much for the old boys network.  Still a loyal Brit  billyfridge. ;)
I cannot agree that they will come out squeaky clean.

In all likelihood Hoon and Campbell will lose their jobs, perhaps not immediately, but in the fullness of time.

Blair's reputation is severely tarnished, probably beyond repair. It is increasingly unlikely that he will serve another term as PM.

I only watched very little of the parliamentary inquisition of that man. The way he was treated was shameful. Having seen how the same MPs treated The PM and Campbell, it was obvious that were not going to upset anyone who could hurt them back. However they were quite willing to savage someone out of his depth.

To say to this man who was totally ill equipped to deal with the situation is an understatement. For them to make it clear that they believed him to be a scapegoat and still badger him the way they did was totally disgraceful. It really was the 15 minutes of fame scenario for failed politicians. They will have to live with their consciences.

However my original point remains that the way Bush has treated Blair and the British people in public is also shameful. After the support he was given, both physical and moral, one could have expected better from him. To see his staunchest Allies as a way out of a difficult situation is frankly despicable.

thewizeard
07-21-2003, 11:53 AM
If you ask me the scenario is set for "finding"some WMD in Iraq.

myfiles3000
07-21-2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by nigel123@21 July 2003 - 12:53
If you ask me the scenario is set for "finding"some WMD in Iraq.
jpaul's point about some bigwigs likely going down is right -- there wouldn't be so much publicity otherwise. I can't help but respect nigel's cynical speculation about "finding" WMD, but I think that plan is way too risky for them to try to pull off now -- the world is watching every move. the level of scrutiny just keeps getting higher.

J'Pol
07-21-2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000+21 July 2003 - 14:13--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 21 July 2003 - 14:13)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-nigel123@21 July 2003 - 12:53
If you ask me the scenario is set for "finding"some WMD in Iraq.
jpaul&#39;s point about some bigwigs likely going down is right -- there wouldn&#39;t be so much publicity otherwise. I can&#39;t help but respect nigel&#39;s cynical speculation about "finding" WMD, but I think that plan is way too risky for them to try to pull off now -- the world is watching every move. the level of scrutiny just keeps getting higher. [/b][/quote]
What do you think of the Bush / UK Intelligence situation.

myfiles3000
07-21-2003, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by JPaul@21 July 2003 - 14:39
What do you think of the Bush / UK Intelligence situation.
i think they&#39;re in a big creek with a small paddle, and its more likely to get worse than better for the mid-term. Latest news to confirm such a view is a pentagon-commissioned report released last week warning that if the forces don&#39;t make significant progress in Iraq soon, the entire endeavour will fail. Wolfowitz admitted last week that the dropped the ball on preserving civil order after the collapse of the old regime.

as i&#39;ve said many times on the subject, the whole adventure was tainted with wilfull blindness, no seasoned intelligence officer could possibly have been fooled by the Niger documents. Its the difference between analyzing the data, then making a decision on how to act, versus the current situation where the decision was made regardless of the data, then plundered for whatever information would justify the decision.

Last week, i read the first headline speculating that Shrub will be a one-termer. I think thats less likely than more to happen....but then again, last week, i read the first headline speculating that Shrub will be a one-termer.

J'Pol
07-21-2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000+21 July 2003 - 15:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 21 July 2003 - 15:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@21 July 2003 - 14:39
What do you think of the Bush / UK Intelligence situation.
i think they&#39;re in a big creek with a small paddle, and its more likely to get worse than better for the mid-term. Latest news to confirm such a view is a pentagon-commissioned report released last week warning that if the forces don&#39;t make significant progress in Iraq soon, the entire endeavour will fail. Wolfowitz admitted last week that the dropped the ball on preserving civil order after the collapse of the old regime.

as i&#39;ve said many times on the subject, the whole adventure was tainted with wilfull blindness, no seasoned intelligence officer could possibly have been fooled by the Niger documents. Its the difference between analyzing the data, then making a decision on how to act, versus the current situation where the decision was made regardless of the data, then plundered for whatever information would justify the decision.

Last week, i read the first headline speculating that Shrub will be a one-termer. I think thats less likely than more to happen....but then again, last week, i read the first headline speculating that Shrub will be a one-termer. [/b][/quote]
So, in essence you feel that Bush&#39;s intelligence people should have looked at the material and warned him against it.

Which makes it even more shameful that he is blaming the UK for his / their own failings.

thewizeard
07-21-2003, 02:35 PM
I should have made no comment at all as I have not heard the comments of President Bush jr. I could not resist it though. I have always had a low opinion of him and this, what you reported, only goes to underscore it.

I am sure he himself feels, with hindsight, ashamed of what he has said. (or he should be) Luckily his term in office is drawing to a close and hopefuly the American people will this time be "allowed" to chose someone more apt to carry out the duties of such a responsible position.

I say "allowed" because I feel that the last elections were rigged. But that is another totally dfferent topic.

myfiles3000
07-21-2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by JPaul@21 July 2003 - 15:23
So, in essence you feel that Bush&#39;s intelligence people should have looked at the material and warned him against it.

Which makes it even more shameful that he is blaming the UK for his / their own failings.
your comment implies that Bush was the victim of his underlings, which i reject on principle, as I think the turth is much closer to the opposite. IMHO, the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that he didn&#39;t orchestrate in winkwinknudgenudge fashion all of this deception, he and wolfowitz and cheney and rumsfeld. I think its naive to think that the most powerful men in the US, and therefore in the world, were so easily compromised by subordinate incompetence. like i keep saying, wilful blindness, and I mean at the very top, not middle management.

billyfridge
07-21-2003, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by chalkmongoose@21 July 2003 - 03:17
Wait... Why is America even THINKING of trusting the Brits? I mean, not to cause a fight, but didn&#39;t we kick their asses with a few muskets and a guy in a coonskin cap a couple of hundred years back? I mean, we pretty much embarrased them in front of the whole world, and all they got to do as punishment was burn our white house down in 1812.
In my previous post i wasn&#39;t having a go at the yanks, but a yank thinks so. so bollocks to him/her/it. we must be having it soft in basra, but the poor yanks are having it not so good in bagdad, but not to worry, the yanks are the elite they are sorting it????. If we brits are so useless, inept, inefficient, etc,etc, PLEASE PLEASE
don&#39;t involve us in anymore policing of the world. just let us muddle on in our own
daft way. i would be everso pleased. billyfridge. <_<

lynx
07-21-2003, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@21 July 2003 - 16:51
he (Bush) and wolfowitz and cheney and rumsfeld.
I think you should include Blair and Campbell in that cabal. They could hardly have been involved in providing the &#39;evidence&#39; without being completely aware of what was going on. Now it seems to be a case of thieves falling out.

hobbes
07-21-2003, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by nigel123@21 July 2003 - 15:35
I should have made no comment at all as I have not heard the comments of President Bush jr. I could not resist it though. I have always had a low opinion of him and this, what you reported, only goes to underscore it.


I say "allowed" because I feel that the last elections were rigged. But that is another totally dfferent topic.
Wouldn&#39;t this be another act of willful blindness? You believe that the election was fixed because that is the conclusion you want to believe.

Although you cannot support this statement and although there is proof to the contrary, you still wish to hold onto your conspiracy fantasy.

You would think that America would notice if someone were elected whom nobody voted for or wanted. The fact is that the election was a close one between equal incompetants. The full recount done in Florida, as referenced by J2K4 many times, actually widened Bushs&#39; lead.

I find it ironic that in a thread about not getting the facts straight, someone posts this. No, I did not vote for Bush.

Rat Faced
07-21-2003, 08:57 PM
JPaul,

I fail to see how he could blame the British intelligence, as this intelligence had been publically pulled apart months before his speech anyway.

In addition, the UK government is being accused of the same things as the US Government as to sexing up of the intelligence....ie Dont blame the Security Services of EITHER side, it was the politicians that decided what intelligence to use, against the advice of all the Intelligence Agencies on both sides of the Atlantic.



In essence; Bush tried to put a spin on something that was already spinning wildly out of control before he opened his mouth.


Does this make sense?

Strange, i know what i meant.... ;)

J'Pol
07-21-2003, 09:13 PM
I know exactly what you meant.

The problem is that most people don&#39;t actually know what intelligence is. To say that you have intelligence to suggest something doesn&#39;t really mean anything. It can be anything from total speculation to an absolute certainty.

You really have to know the classifications. The normal gradings for intelligence have 125 possible combinations. I believe the military gradings have 216 possible combinations.

You really have to know the veracity of the source, the information and the recipient before you can really make any judgement on the quality of intelligence.

thewizeard
07-21-2003, 10:39 PM
Hobbes:
Not wanting to go off topic, please allow me to meander a little. I have followed G.Bushes career over the years, long before he was President. As governor of Texas, he allowed a mentally disturbed person to be put to death. Someone who could/should not be held resposible for his deeds. In fact I don&#39;t think he ever showed any clemeny.

You receive your facts via the media, so do I for the most part. In this case the media for me was JPaul. Whose opinion I feel I can trust more than for example CNN. I have not yet heard a denial that these words were not said by your President so by deduction I can assume that what JPaul said to be true. Your President has blamed the British intelligence for going to war in effect. He has passed the buck. Not very becoming for a super power.

Intelligence or no intelligence as regards to active WMD projects in Iraq, I believe there were active, ongoing projects. That Sadam has been removed from power, is a good thing in my opinion. Only problem is the timing, it should have been done during the gulf war. That has resulted in many deaths and a huge refugee problem.

Blair has stood by Bush and I believe got him out of many a scrape. It has certainly cost him dearly at home. This then is no way to treat your staunchest ally. As regards to the election farce, feel free to start a new topic then we can discuss it further. Perhaps there is an already existing topic that could be "dug" up.

hobbes
07-21-2003, 10:57 PM
In THIS forum it is required that you read the thread. You must read Myfiles and his points about "willful blindness" to get the gist of my post.

I was specifically responding to your comment that our elections were "fixed". I have already commented on the original post by JPaul.

Don&#39;t you see the irony. GBush was accussed of putting forth the intelligence report that Iraq was seeking nuclear weapons because it fit his agenda. You do the same by stating that his election was fixed. Both of you have abandoned impartiality to support your preconceived conclusions/agendas.

You seem to feel justified in holding Bush to a standard you don&#39;t follow yourself. This is called hypocracy.

Jpaul, by the way, is an intelligent man with opinions, but not a media source.

You need to prove that our election proceedings were tainted, not just give us your opinion because you are not a "Bush fan".

sArA
07-21-2003, 11:06 PM
My couple of pennies worth...

The idea of anyone deliberately &#39;sexing up&#39; a reason for war is despicable.

Possibly, Blair thought he could &#39;handle&#39; Bush and keep him in some kind of check by being his &#39;mate&#39; cos everyone else is scared of him.

As with all friendships based on manipulation and fear (remember the bullies at school and their little gang of cronies?) The toadie always gets it in the end...

Serious miscalculation of Blair to try and brownose Bush.

Now he is in the shit past his nose if the US blames the UK for the whole thing. The French will have a field day saying &#39;we told you so&#39;, and will do their best to make Britain the laughing stock of Europe. With our &#39;friends&#39; in the US turning our backs,
it doesn&#39;t look good for Blair&#39;s future career does it?

lynx
07-22-2003, 01:38 AM
It seems to me that there is some serious truth evasion going on here.

The &#39;intelligence&#39; about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger was (once again) very dubious, this has been admitted by both the US and UK governments, although certain elements of the UK government still seek to proclaim they believe it could still be true.

It is unprecedented that a war be started on evidence as flimsy as this (and all the other evidence is equally flimsy), but both governments put this information forward as prima facia evidence of WMD. It is inconcievable that the heirarchy of the two governments did not discuss this in great detail before presenting this &#39;data&#39;.

It is equally inconcievable that the intelligence agencies of the two countries did not warn their &#39;masters&#39; of the unreliability of the information, so we are drawn to the conclusion that there were other reasons for wishing to ignore those warnings.

Hobbes - perhaps you could point out the hypocracy/conspiracy theory in my argument. My only wish is to get to the truth of the matter.

myfiles3000
07-22-2003, 03:51 AM
It is unprecedented that a war be started on evidence as flimsy as this

unprecedented, like, in the history of mankind? I could think off the top of my head of, say, half a dozen from last century. the niger documents, as ludicrous as they were, did not constitute the only evidence offered to wage war, and were therefore not crucial for Shrub and Blair to justify the invasion. it doesn&#39;t excuse what happened, but lets not overstate the role of the Niger documents.


(and all the other evidence is equally flimsy),
No, there is entirely credible evidence that hussein had bio and chem weapons, and all the thousands of litres of mold or athletes foot, or whatever the hell they were cooking up, have not been accounted for. This is not in dispute by any credible observer.


but both governments put this information forward as prima facia evidence of WMD.
what information are you referring to exactly? Because its not all the same, the evidence runs the spectrum from absurd to highly credible. feel free to reject Bush&#39;s decisions, i sure as hell do, but you have to stick with the facts.


It is inconcievable that the heirarchy of the two governments did not discuss this in great detail before presenting this &#39;data&#39;. It is equally inconcievable that the intelligence agencies of the two countries did not warn their &#39;masters&#39; of the unreliability of the information, so we are drawn to the conclusion that there were other reasons for wishing to ignore those warnings.
indeed, means to the end of democratizing and free-market-izing the middle east. do you, linx, reject in principle means to end strategies, that is, lesser short-term injustice for greater long-term justice?


My only wish is to get to the truth of the matter.
if truth is what you seek, I would avoid generalizations, and embrace nuance, nuance being something that comes with age and experience and as often as not drinking single malts neat.

thewizeard
07-22-2003, 05:09 AM
Hobbes: @ Election farce; I don&#39;t agree with you or J2K4 on that matter. I pointed out at the time, it was off topic. Sorry to undermine your argument. So your conclusion that it was ironic is a little early. I have upset you in the past; don&#39;t go grinding your axe here.

In the words of Sallust,"Ambition drove men to become false; to have one thought locked in the breast, another ready on the tongue." This sounds familiar when applied to this case.

To chose a totally inadequate man (Republican Party) for such a responsible post
says more about that party than about their candidate. To rule at any cost..... Well it&#39;s backfireing on them now.

I will keep it short, I don&#39;t want to get the facts of the matter. They will just turn out to be more lies. The truth is indeed more important than the facts. All the rhetoric in the world wont change that.

lynx
07-22-2003, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@22 July 2003 - 04:51

It is unprecedented that a war be started on evidence as flimsy as this
unprecedented, like, in the history of mankind? I could think off the top of my head of, say, half a dozen from last century. the niger documents, as ludicrous as they were, did not constitute the only evidence offered to wage war, and were therefore not crucial for Shrub and Blair to justify the invasion. it doesn&#39;t excuse what happened, but lets not overstate the role of the Niger documents.

Please supply examples, it is easy to say &#39;I can do x&#39; and then not do so. I did not say it was the only evidence.



(and all the other evidence is equally flimsy),
No, there is entirely credible evidence that hussein had bio and chem weapons, and all the thousands of litres of mold or athletes foot, or whatever the hell they were cooking up, have not been accounted for. This is not in dispute by any credible observer.

See, there&#39;s the bit where I refer to other evidence. Where are these credible observers, please bring them forward.



but both governments put this information forward as prima facia evidence of WMD.
what information are you referring to exactly? Because its not all the same, the evidence runs the spectrum from absurd to highly credible. feel free to reject Bush&#39;s decisions, i sure as hell do, but you have to stick with the facts.

I wonder if I might be referring to the &#39;Niger documents&#39;, since that is the topic of this thread. Facts stuck to 100 per cent.



It is inconcievable that the heirarchy of the two governments did not discuss this in great detail before presenting this &#39;data&#39;. It is equally inconcievable that the intelligence agencies of the two countries did not warn their &#39;masters&#39; of the unreliability of the information, so we are drawn to the conclusion that there were other reasons for wishing to ignore those warnings.
indeed, means to the end of democratizing and free-market-izing the middle east. do you, linx, reject in principle means to end strategies, that is, lesser short-term injustice for greater long-term justice?

Here, I am demonstrating that all parties were aware of the weakness of the evidence, and that it is too late now to start pointing fingers of blame. I do indeed reject means to end strategies, these were exactly the principles held by the Nazi party in the last century. But feel free to put the jackboot of your &#39;democracy&#39; on the necks of other countries.



My only wish is to get to the truth of the matter.
if truth is what you seek, I would avoid generalizations, and embrace nuance, nuance being something that comes with age and experience and as often as not drinking single malts neat.

Nuance is exactly that which is used to hide the truth. Age and experience show that it leads to obfuscation. I would suggest you lay off the single malts a little, myflies.

myfiles3000
07-22-2003, 12:38 PM
lynx, i&#39;ll give you a couple of hours to retract anything you, posted...its the gentlemanly thing to do before i respond.

lynx
07-22-2003, 01:10 PM
I&#39;ve already had more than 4 hours, why would I want more ?

Or is it that you need 2 hours to think of a suitable reply ?

thewizeard
07-22-2003, 01:13 PM
Storm clouds are gathering.....Dense clouds, no rain from our western region.

ilw
07-22-2003, 01:16 PM
http://galleries.vinyamar.com/ps/show.php?id=YbqYZ1LCUktMYlpLQVC2USpHd&ext=.gif
No flaming please.

myfiles3000
07-22-2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by lynx@22 July 2003 - 14:10
I&#39;ve already had more than 4 hours, why would I want more ?

Or is it that you need 2 hours to think of a suitable reply ?
as for examples of bullshit reasons to start a war (or war-like activity) frankly I think the best example would be the war on drugs, evidence doesn’t get much flimsier than that. But I know that’s not what you had in mind. Bay of Pigs comes to mind…kosovo/former yugoslavia… Indonesia’s invasion and genocide in East Timor…Imperial Japan’s invasion and genocide in China…then there’s the wars that were denied to exist, eg, Kissinger’s war on Cambodia, let alone presenting evidence to justify, not done because it was unjustifiable…Sudan and Rwanda, not necessarily inter-state warfare, but the same basic principle applies…Stalin’s intervention in Hungary and Chekoslovakia…I recall something about a dubious “pre-emptive strike” in one of the Arab-Israeli wars(?)…how about the cold war? There’s more evidence surfacing that the Red Threat was intentionally exaggerated to bolster defence budgets (including the British Polaris and Trident expenditures), much to the benefit of Raytheon et al.

so, you see, grasshopper, I came up with more than 6, off the top of my head, all suggesting that false reasons for war were certainly not unprecedented before the iraqi invasion. I might very well be mistaken on one or more of these, I don&#39;t profess to be an expert, but the point is, lying and war go hand in hand.

More generally speaking, using the word "unprecedented" when referring to issues of power, violence and relations between societies is not doing you any favours.

lynx
07-22-2003, 02:00 PM
There is one great difference between the examples you quote and the &#39;Niger documents and associated so called intelligence&#39;. None of your examples really needed a reason to get the majority of people (and indeed the politicians who voted on that &#39;evidence&#39;) &#39;onside&#39; before going to war.

I concur that most reasons for going to war are flimsy, but this is not the same as producing flimsy evidence, using that as a reason for going to war, and then bitching about it when the evidence is hauled up for all to see through.

lynx
07-22-2003, 02:11 PM
@nigel123, ilw

see, some of us can have discussions with very different views without resorting to verbal fisticuffs. :P

hobbes
07-22-2003, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by nigel123@22 July 2003 - 06:09
Hobbes:&nbsp; I have upset you in the past; don&#39;t go grinding your axe here.


My curiousity piqued by this, I did a search of my posts and I find no exchange between the two of us. I have no axe to grind, I was just pointing out "irony", you just happened to be the author.

The esteemed media source JPaul will confirm that I do not carry personal baggage from thread to thread.

thewizeard
07-22-2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by hobbes+22 July 2003 - 17:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 22 July 2003 - 17:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-nigel123@22 July 2003 - 06:09
Hobbes: I have upset you in the past; don&#39;t go grinding your axe here.


My curiousity piqued by this, I did a search of my posts and I find no exchange between the two of us. I have no axe to grind, I was just pointing out "irony", you just happened to be the author.

The esteemed media source JPaul will confirm that I do not carry personal baggage from thread to thread. [/b][/quote]
Well that&#39;s cleared the air then. I thought something I said, somewhere else, had upset you.

Isn&#39;t irony something you do in a laundry?

myfiles3000
07-22-2003, 06:18 PM
nigel must have a persecution complex. I can relate.

Anyway, i just read that the fruit of saddam&#39;s loins (now theres a thought), might be dead. I&#39;ve always been curious and ignorant on this issue -- is there any law on killing (former) leaders of states with which you&#39;re waging battle? I mean, did they have to give them the chance to surrender, or did they just walk up like the duke?

Being impossible for a bunker buster to demand your immediate surrender before going sky high, my thinking is that the US must have formerly demanded surrender, and now its a no-holds-barred killfest. I mean, even racist, sexist, narrow-minded serial killers of cute babies is afforded the chance to surrender under domestic criminal law, aren&#39;t they? but, it wasn&#39;t really a legal war in any official sense, its all very grey zone. so, is the coalition operating without quantitative parameters? is their behaviour limited only by diplomatic/IR concerns about pissing too many people off if they go too far?

anyone familiar on the law/protocol of killing your enemies during wartime?

lynx
07-22-2003, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@22 July 2003 - 19:18
anyone familiar on the law/protocol of killing your enemies during wartime?
I can&#39;t really see how there can be anything against it, that person is either a member of the military or is a civilian.

A military figure is surely a lawful target.
And however distasteful it may seem, I don&#39;t think there&#39;s anything in the Geneva or UN Conventions against killing civilians (unless you are talking about deliberate genocide attempts).

Though there may be some things about the way they are killed.

So I suppose it comes down to whether you can claim that the war was lawful.

Edit: Given the chance, I feel quite sure Saddam would have tried to kill Blush or Bair, so I don&#39;t think there would be any diplomatic objections either.

myfiles3000
07-22-2003, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by lynx+22 July 2003 - 19:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 22 July 2003 - 19:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-myfiles3000@22 July 2003 - 19:18
anyone familiar on the law/protocol of killing your enemies during wartime?
I can&#39;t really see how there can be anything against it, that person is either a member of the military or is a civilian.

A military figure is surely a lawful target.
And however distasteful it may seem, I don&#39;t think there&#39;s anything in the Geneva or UN Conventions against killing civilians (unless you are talking about deliberate genocide attempts).

Though there may be some things about the way they are killed.

So I suppose it comes down to whether you can claim that the war was lawful.

Edit: Given the chance, I feel quite sure Saddam would have tried to kill Blush or Bair, so I don&#39;t think there would be any diplomatic objections either. [/b][/quote]
linx, don&#39;t take this the wrong way, but you&#39;re smart and articulate, why not see what you can find on the subject? I say this because of my conviction that advanced research skills will serve you well in the information society. and you&#39;ll also win online debates much easier with a few choice links or attributed statistics.

Rat Faced
07-22-2003, 08:05 PM
Links for The Law of Armed Conflict?

Now thats a hard one...most Western Troops are trained in the subject, however as they are trained by their Ministry/Dept of Defence, most of the course is not in the Public Domain. (Although interestingly enough, the questions asked on the courses are..)

Ive had a quick look around, and some of these are relevent to different threads in this room...the most comprehensive being the last one.

Hope these are OK for you....



Law of Armed Conflict

Links

University of Minnisota (http://heiwww.unige.ch/humanrts/instree/auoy.htm)

Centre of Contempoary Conflict (http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/si/aug02/law.asp)

Human Rights Education Association (http://www.hrea.org/erc/Library/list.php?category_id=27&category_type=3)


Integrated Publishing (http://www.tpub.com/dental1/108.htm) A summary...

Law of War (http://lawofwar.org/) Quite a good guide...

J'Pol
07-22-2003, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by hobbes@22 July 2003 - 18:52

The esteemed media source JPaul will confirm that I do not carry personal baggage from thread to thread.
That&#39;s a bit harsh, particularly when I was not even involved in that part of the conversation. However I will happily confirm your claim.

At least it has been my experience.

With regard to the "sons" if it is confirmed that it was them. There is no way on God´s green earth that they were ever going to be taken alive. Or more correctly the world was going to know that it had happened. There are several reasons for this. These include

1. Some, probably a lot, of Iraqi people fear that they or their father may get back into power. Remember this is ingrained in these people´s psyche. To have them dead is the only way that will go away.

2. What would you do with them, try them for war crimes. Imagine the expense, the terrorist activity, the worldwide arguments on where and how. Just too complicated. Simpler to eliminate the problem

It is a documented fact that SAS strike teams (so I assume some others as well) kill all terrorists in a hostage situation. They make no bones about it, it is part of their legend. If they try to surrender they will be shot dead.

This obviates any problems with courts etc and enhances their reputation.

denis123
07-22-2003, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by JPaul+22 July 2003 - 20:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul &#064; 22 July 2003 - 20:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@22 July 2003 - 18:52

The esteemed media source JPaul will confirm that I do not carry personal baggage from thread to thread.
That&#39;s a bit harsh, particularly when I was not even involved in that part of the conversation. However I will happily confirm your claim.

At least it has been my experience.

[/b][/quote]
"Sarcasm is the escape route of an empty soul."

J'Pol
07-22-2003, 08:45 PM
I though he was being ironic.

lynx
07-22-2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@22 July 2003 - 20:17
linx, don&#39;t take this the wrong way, but you&#39;re smart and articulate, why not see what you can find on the subject? I say this because of my conviction that advanced research skills will serve you well in the information society. and you&#39;ll also win online debates much easier with a few choice links or attributed statistics.
btw it&#39;s lynx, not linx (I thought you might have picked up on my use of &#39;myflies&#39;).

I&#39;m sure I could find some references to this subject, (RF has done so, so I won&#39;t bother on this topic unless I unexpectedly find they are not of the quality I desire). But I generally feel fairly comfortable that my own views and debating skills are sufficient not to need them in the first instance. But be assured that I certainly can (and will) find such background material should it prove necessary.

The reason I actually prefer to put my own views rather than quote those of someone else, is simply because I do not usually know the background to their views, and consequently I try to avoid their use until I have had time to research the contents. I realise this sometimes seems to put me at conflict with the perceived norm, but in a normal conversational (unprepared) debate our own views are often all we have to go on. Surely we find out much more about each other if we exchange our own views rather that simply quote the views of strangers.

If someone can show my views to actually be wrong, I will concede defeat, but (and please don&#39;t take this personally yourself ;) ) I have noticed that you have a tendency towards trying to show things to be semantically incorrect. You may find this tends to make your own argument seem picky, and it usually does nothing to progress the debate.

I realise that some find this irksome, but I was taught to write as if the other correspondent was in the room with me, and we were talking face to face, a glass of wine in one hand, favorite music playing in the background, and generally having a good chinwag. You might like to try it that way.

Have I hijacked this thread yet ?

Edit: semantics :lol:

thewizeard
07-23-2003, 04:35 AM
Getting close&#33; Would you like another glass of whine? Seriously though links fancy some golf. I couldn&#39;t agree more with you in most cases. If we can all stay "friends"at the end of the debate then much shall have been achieved

myfiles3000
07-23-2003, 01:44 PM
am i the only one hoping to make some bitter, life-long enemies on this board?

thewizeard
07-23-2003, 02:17 PM
I think it is important to keep a sense of humour, myfiles.

I am protected against my enemies, much less against my friends.

lynx
07-23-2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@23 July 2003 - 14:44
am i the only one hoping to make some bitter, life-long enemies on this board?
If you think I am going to fall out with you over this, you can kiss my arse.

Styx
07-23-2003, 02:31 PM
The last time i remember a popular war taking place on shonky evidence with civilians dropping everything to rush off to the front was with the crusades... remeber Prester John and his letter?

I sincerely hope that we gained in morals and civilisation since then, and that this &#39;Gulf War II" is only a minor set back on account of a cowboy being in office in the only supergiant country left in the world...

myfiles3000
07-23-2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Styx@23 July 2003 - 15:31
The last time i remember a popular war taking place on shonky evidence with civilians dropping everything to rush off to the front was with the crusades... remeber Prester John and his letter?

I sincerely hope that we gained in morals and civilisation since then, and that this &#39;Gulf War II" is only a minor set back on account of a cowboy being in office in the only supergiant country left in the world...
styx, what do you think gore would have done differently?

Styx
07-23-2003, 02:54 PM
How did the war start anyway? ... *tries to remember*

Oh yeah, it was Pres. Bush seeking out Osama Bin Laden. This was very honorable and all, and more or less justified. Then the &#39;war of terrorism&#39; started. Then it was the &#39;Axis of Evil&#39; (couldn&#39;t use the evil empire again) With Iraq, Iran and N. Korea. Then, somewhere along the line, we blinked, missed a few seconds, and suddenly Osama Bin Laden couldn&#39;t be found, and was there fore in Iraq (possibly). Then there were WOMD in Iraq. -toddles off to the UN- Okay, some diplomatic back and forthing here, then we have Weapons Inspectors in Iraq. All good so far... Then suddenly, Iraqs deluding the WIs, and the US of A has to step in to make iraq see the picture. Oh yeah, and not forgetting N. Korea&#39;s threat of nuclear weapons (WOMD) was too dicey to stage a invasion (hmm... double standards maybe?:blink:)

Do you think that Mr. Gore might of handled the whole situation a little differently? A little at the start might well have been enough to make a vast difference inthe end result. (hmmm... reminds me of chaos equations... :P )

myfiles3000
07-23-2003, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Styx@23 July 2003 - 15:54
Do you think that Mr. Gore might of handled the whole situation a little differently? A little at the start might well have been enough to make a vast difference in the end result. (hmmm... reminds me of chaos equations... :P )
okay, so I guess your answer to my question is, Yes, gore would have done things differently. What i&#39;m interested to hear about is how exactly he would have acted differently.

hobbes
07-23-2003, 05:02 PM
George Bush will be remembered by me for what he did not do on Sept 12, 2001. Often times we forget acts of retraint, but that wouldn&#39;t fit your "Cowboy" caricature, would it?

That was the beginning, and it was handled perfectly. Trust me, Americas&#39; inaction after the WTC attacks was an amazing act of self control as the popular consensus was to "Launch the nucs and let God sort out the rest".


edit:removed cliche

hobbes
07-23-2003, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000+23 July 2003 - 17:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 23 July 2003 - 17:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Styx@23 July 2003 - 15:54
Do you think that Mr. Gore might of handled the whole situation a little differently? A little at the start might well have been enough to make a vast difference in the end result. (hmmm... reminds me of chaos equations...&nbsp; :P )
okay, so I guess your answer to my question is, Yes, gore would have done things differently. What i&#39;m interested to hear about is how exactly he would have acted differently. [/b][/quote]
Yes, an intriguing question, I posted several months ago.

Honestly, I don&#39;t think much different.

I wonder what Jesus would have done?

J'Pol
07-23-2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Styx@23 July 2003 - 15:31
The last time i remember a popular war taking place on shonky evidence with civilians dropping everything to rush off to the front was with the crusades... remeber Prester John and his letter?


Flippin heck, I thought I was old.

myfiles3000
07-23-2003, 06:19 PM
Yes, an intriguing question, I posted several months ago. Honestly, I don&#39;t think much different.
nor do I, i think there are a lot of systemic pressures that are too great for the individual to overcome. The discussion of this topic would require enormous amounts of nuance to avoid it descending into a jerk-fest for whoever you&#39;re rooting for...it seems to me...


I wonder what Jesus would have done?
Put a big cross on the front lawns of the pentagon, i imagine.

Rat Faced
07-23-2003, 06:28 PM
Put a big cross on the front lawns of the pentagon, i imagine.

I doubt it, somehow :rolleyes:


I was less than impressed with GW on 9/11 and afterwards, he came across as a total coward and thicko.

I was VERY impressed with a certain City&#39;s mayor, however.....

ilw
07-23-2003, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@23 July 2003 - 20:28

Put a big cross on the front lawns of the pentagon, i imagine.

I doubt it, somehow :rolleyes:

LMAO

I&#39;m sure crosses were among Jesus&#39; top ten favourite things

Neil__
07-23-2003, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by JPaul@20 July 2003 - 19:16

Actually one of the reasons we had for going to war, was based on intelligence supplied to me by the UK, and we believed it. If we were wrong going to war then it was the UK´s fault all the time.




I&#39;m speechless.

Neil

Edit : And LIVID

abigspidermonkey
07-23-2003, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by JPaul@20 July 2003 - 18:16
What sort of leader when under pressure says that,

Actually one of the reasons we had for going to war, was based on intelligence supplied to me by the UK, and we believed it. If we were wrong going to war then it was the UK´s fault all the time.

If this is the way to treat your staunchest Ally, then I am confused on what the word loyalty means.

I&#39;m sorry to have to say this but your president is anything but a Statesman. Frankly he has no class.
buddy bush isnt that bad god :angry:

hobbes
07-23-2003, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@23 July 2003 - 19:28

Put a big cross on the front lawns of the pentagon, i imagine.

I doubt it, somehow :rolleyes:


I was less than impressed with GW on 9/11 and afterwards, he came across as a total coward and thicko.

I was VERY impressed with a certain City&#39;s mayor, however.....
Damned if you do, damned if you don&#39;t, the world has spoken.

Guilliani and Bush. The comparison is so unfair as to be absurd.

Guillani did a fine job in his tiny ring. Bush, a fresh little President , had to make decisions that would effect the world and the future, not few city blocks in NYC.

Guilliani acted as an antibiotic, preventing infection of our wounds and smoothing the path toward healing. The wound would have healed whether he was there or not anyway, so he is of little consequence today.

Any rash act by Bush and his people would have irrevocably altered history, and I think for the worse. I tend to notice that when I act out of emotion, I often feel regret when I have time to consider the dominoes I have set in motion.

Ratfaced, what should he have done? And why is he a coward? What was he afraid of, after all, this is the same man who ordered his country to war against the will of the world.

I already can smell the reply, "what could be worse than now?" from the Hypoluxas of the forum. Whatever, you know as well as I it could be much worse.

Rat Faced
07-23-2003, 11:42 PM
And why is he a coward? What was he afraid of, after all, this is the same man who ordered his country to war against the will of the world.


Climbed in AirForce1 and wouldnt come down again, when every other world leader would be heading for the tragedy.

He knew it was planes flying into buildings and not a military strike...he could have just hopped to the next military base along and even if they were after him, they wouldnt know where he was....but even that wasnt good enough for dear brave Bush.

hobbes
07-24-2003, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@24 July 2003 - 00:42

And why is he a coward? What was he afraid of, after all, this is the same man who ordered his country to war against the will of the world.


Climbed in AirForce1 and wouldnt come down again, when every other world leader would be heading for the tragedy.

He knew it was planes flying into buildings and not a military strike...he could have just hopped to the next military base along and even if they were after him, they wouldnt know where he was....but even that wasnt good enough for dear brave Bush.
Bah, that is protocol. Don&#39;t give me crap like that.

He had no choice and you know it. This type of protocol is set in place to prevent the human instincts of the President from interfering with his much bigger political role as Commander in Chief.

Rat, you know I&#39;m not a Bush fan, but I don&#39;t support unfair bashing.


*hope this one actually makes it to the board&#33;

denis123
07-24-2003, 07:50 AM
Protocol it may be, what surprised me the most was the number of days it took, before he actually did visit New York.The pictures of Guillani making his way through the rubble and dust, in stark contrast.

As to his restraint about waiting before he attacked Afghanistan, seeing the most of the hijackers were Saudi citizens(correct me if I wrong), then I presume Saudia Arabia is wondering exactly when they will be attacked. I believe that George Bush, like the most of us, was suffering from shock(and awe) at the time. There should have been a protocol in place for keeping his mouth shut.

USA has evacuated its airforce bases in S. Arabia or is in the process of evacuating. I wonder what the long term plans of the USA are.

hobbes
07-24-2003, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by denis123@24 July 2003 - 08:50
Protocol it may be, what surprised me the most was the number of days it took, before he actually did visit New York.The pictures of Guillani making his way through the rubble and dust, in stark contrast.

As to his restraint about waiting before he attacked Afghanistan, seeing the most of the hijackers were Saudi citizens(correct me if I wrong), then I presume Saudia Arabia is wondering exactly when they will be attacked. I believe that George Bush, like the most of us, was suffering from shock(and awe) at the time. There should have been a protocol in place for keeping his mouth shut.

USA has evacuated its airforce bases in S. Arabia or is in the process of evacuating. I wonder what the long term plans of the USA are.
That is exactly the point. Why should he ever visit NYC, this is irrelevant. Do you think GW avoided NYC on his own, or perhaps his advisors made him follow this course of action? A leader never loses the forest for the trees. Guilliani represents NY, and this was his obligation.

The path of least resistance is to launch nuclear missles againast this country(Saudia Arabia) and why I respect him for not doing the obvious.

How stupid are you people? He did not do this and he pursued Afganistan, that is the reason why I laud him.

What situation would we be in if had attacked Saudi Arabia? I couldn&#39;t have asked a straight man to be as myopic as you have been.

What did he say, exactly, which should not have been said? Or are you just speaking from your ass?

ilw
07-24-2003, 08:09 AM
I don&#39;t agree that the path of least resistance would have been to nuke saudi arabia. I very much doubt that nuking another country was ever even considered because it is a ridiculous idea. Even bombing saudi arabia is almost out of the question becuase it is the worlds largest oil exporter and America is the worlds largest oil user. Attacking Afghanistan was the path of least resistance because that is where Osama bin laden was and Afghanistan was also the centre for the terrorist organisation which carried out 9/11. Admittedly the large majority of the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, but America is &#39;allies&#39; with them.

denis123
07-24-2003, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by hobbes@24 July 2003 - 08:01


How stupid are you people? He did not do this and he pursued Afganistan, that is the reason why I laud him. Are you people really as stupid as you appear?
Have to leave you to decide that Hobbes. There&#39;s no point insulting people, certainly does&#39;t make discussion any more easy. Although in my situation I tend to believe you&#33;

Well he did eventually get to New York. If he had arrived the very same day, he would have really reached the hearts of the people. In such a time as 9.11 it really would have been the best place in the world to be, certainly in these days of advanced electronics.

hobbes
07-24-2003, 08:18 AM
Sorry, edited my post several times, thought I had the time.

Let me reflect on your responses.

hobbes
07-24-2003, 08:25 AM
I have reflected, and I stand 100% behind what I have said. The point was about non-action over a knee-jerk response.

The fact that most were Saudi would indicate that the response should have been toward that country. A more reflective look, changes the target to Afganistan. After all, Osama was discovered, not the admitted commitor. He denied being responsible, right? Had he called Bush, you might even have a point, but he didn&#39;t.


Does anyone think that he avoided NYC personally, or was he waiting for approval. Seriously, don&#39;t waste my time with bullshit specualtion.

denis123
07-24-2003, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by hobbes@24 July 2003 - 08:25
bullshit specualtion.
I refer you to my earlier post.

ilw
07-24-2003, 08:43 AM
It was never going to be a knee jerk response though was it, no matter how bad a president. Military campaigns take a lot of planning and setting up (unless all u want to do is drop nukes which isn&#39;t an option these days unless nukes have first been used against u), It took a month to build up forces to attack a tiny underpopulated and almost 3rd world country like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia is much larger, much richer and much more advanced and has an effective army and air force. Even if Bush had wanted to do the knee jerk thing, (and it wouldn&#39;t surprise me) it wouldn&#39;t have happened because the process would have taken months to plan and the situation would have changed.
Also didn&#39;t it take a while to identify the hijackers and find out where they were from whereas they realised very early on that it was Al Qaeda which they knew was well supported by the Taleban.

hobbes
07-24-2003, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by denis123+24 July 2003 - 09:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (denis123 @ 24 July 2003 - 09:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@24 July 2003 - 08:25
bullshit specualtion.
I refer you to my earlier post. [/b][/quote]
I am attacking no one. Denis, what point are you trying to make. Was Bush a coward?

"Hearts of the people" is an irrelevant platitude and why NYC has a mayor.

Bush had bigger fish to fry. The whole thing started with Ratfaced calling Bush "thick and a coward". I think I have defended this point well.

I have since learned to spell it..."speculation".

hobbes
07-24-2003, 08:50 AM
Ilw,

What is your point?

Did Bush act rashly or appropriately in response to 9/11?

I fail to see how nuclear strikes would need to be planned. We have the weapons, and the target is in range.

The identification of the nationality of the hijackers far precededed their common link to Al Queda.

Remember, the reason for my post was simply to object to Ratfaced, who claimed that Bush was a stupid coward. I am not a Bush fan, but I was affronted by this unnecessary and unjustified attack on the man.

ilw
07-24-2003, 09:10 AM
Yeah nuclear strikes were given as the exception to the rule about needing long term military planning, but as i stated these were out of the question. I&#39;m not really arguing whether Bush acted correctly or incorrectly, in my view there wasn&#39;t really much of a decision to make at that point in time. There were very few options open to him, essentially it was more a case of as someone else said:

i think there are a lot of systemic pressures that are too great for the individual to overcome
I was basically arguing that he couldnt have taken the path u suggested even if he were stupid and cowardly like Rat Faced suggested. (i&#39;m arguing that ur comments don&#39;t really disprove Rat Faced&#39;s comment, but IMO the comment was unjustified and would be very hard to disprove)

Neil__
07-24-2003, 12:17 PM
I second Rat Faced

Bush is Stupid and Cowardly.

The statement starting this topic proves that.

Also is he handing the next election to Hilary Clinton?
or ANYONE else for that matter.

Neil

thewizeard
07-24-2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Neil__@24 July 2003 - 12:17




Also is he handing the next election to Hilary Clinton?


Neil
Hello Neil, long time no see(read)&#33;

Well I hope so&#33; I do hope she stands for Office- as long as she does&#39;t behave like lets say, Golda Meir, Ghandhi or Thatcher&#33;&#33; That would shake them up in the Whitehouse.

See you round the forum

Nigel

Neil__
07-24-2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by nigel123@24 July 2003 - 13:27
Hello Neil, long time no see(read)&#33;

Well I hope so&#33; I do hope she stands for Office- as long as she does&#39;t behave like lets say, Golda Meir, Ghandhi or Thatcher&#33;&#33; That would shake them up in the Whitehouse.

See you round the forum

Nigel



Hello Nigel,

I hevent been on much this week. Good to be back.

Will Bill be known as the First Gentleman?
or doesn&#39;t that term exist?

And please don&#39;t scare me with thoughts of the second comming of Thatcherism.
I don&#39;t think my mind would want to cope.

Neil

thewizeard
07-24-2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Neil__@24 July 2003 - 12:38

.

Will Bill be known as the First Gentleman?
or doesn&#39;t that term exist?


Maybe apprentice First Gentelman&#33;

That would leave them with a problem......,

Neil__
07-24-2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by nigel123@24 July 2003 - 13:59
Maybe apprentice First Gentelman&#33;

That would leave them with a problem......,




Aww. Poor Bill.

Neil.

myfiles3000
07-24-2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by denis123@24 July 2003 - 08:50
USA has evacuated its airforce bases in S. Arabia or is in the process of evacuating. I wonder what the long term plans of the USA are.
judging by the article below, the long-term plans of the us are to employ ever-more technological solutions to avoid things like compromise, consensus and cooperation in an interdependant world. in this case, hypersonic aircraft will allow the US to take all its marbles home and not have to depend on foreign-soil airbases.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid...fense&printer=1 (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=96&u=/space/20030723/sc_space/goinghypersonicflyingfalconfordefense&printer=1)

thewizeard
07-24-2003, 01:52 PM
I have just read it, at the end of the article some one says "And I think its all very exciting." I think its all very terrifying&#33;&#33;

In any case I presume that USA is not going to attack Saudia Arabia.

Neil__
07-24-2003, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by nigel123@24 July 2003 - 14:52
In any case I presume that USA are not going to attack Saudia Arabia.



Even Bush isn&#39;t that insane.

Would be interesting to see how he tried to sell the lies that pretend to justify it,

Neil

clocker
07-24-2003, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@24 July 2003 - 07:33

judging by the article below, the long-term plans of the us are to employ ever-more technological solutions to avoid things like compromise, consensus and cooperation in an interdependant world. in this case, hypersonic aircraft will allow the US to take all its marbles home and not have to depend on foreign-soil airbases.


I&#39;m sorry, but I don&#39;t see how you get from point A to point B in this sentence, Myfiles.
Our dependence on foreign soil military bases has been a sore point for decades.
It would seem to me that anything that reduces the US military presence in unstable parts of the world would be a good thing.
For example, the US has long been forced to cozy up to a grotesquely corrupt and repressive ruling cabal in Saudi Arabia because of the strategic importance of the airfields they allow us to maintain there. As described in your linked article, hypersonic aircraft would make such compromises unnecessary and perhaps free us to exert more political pressure on the Sauds.
Would this be a bad thing?

lynx
07-25-2003, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by clocker+25 July 2003 - 00:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 25 July 2003 - 00:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-myfiles3000@24 July 2003 - 07:33

judging by the article below, the long-term plans of the us are to employ ever-more technological solutions to avoid things like compromise, consensus and cooperation in an interdependant world. in this case, hypersonic aircraft will allow the US to take all its marbles home and not have to depend on foreign-soil airbases.


I&#39;m sorry, but I don&#39;t see how you get from point A to point B in this sentence, Myfiles.
Our dependence on foreign soil military bases has been a sore point for decades.
It would seem to me that anything that reduces the US military presence in unstable parts of the world would be a good thing.
For example, the US has long been forced to cozy up to a grotesquely corrupt and repressive ruling cabal in Saudi Arabia because of the strategic importance of the airfields they allow us to maintain there. As described in your linked article, hypersonic aircraft would make such compromises unnecessary and perhaps free us to exert more political pressure on the Sauds.
Would this be a bad thing? [/b][/quote]
Or, just for once, you could keep your noses at home, unblock your ears and listen to what the rest of the world thinks about your interference.

clocker
07-25-2003, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by lynx@24 July 2003 - 18:32

Or, just for once, you could keep your noses at home, unblock your ears and listen to what the rest of the world thinks about your interference.
Well yes, I suppose that would be an option, also.

I am, more and more, in agreement with the famous philosopher Eric Cartman-"Screw you guys, I&#39;m going home&#33;"
*

I&#39;d like nothing more than to concentrate our resources on fixing up the old homestead.


* A reference that I hope went flying miles over your head lynx, as South Park represents the juggernaut of American cultural imperialism at it&#39;s very worst (but funniest).

lynx
07-25-2003, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by clocker+25 July 2003 - 02:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 25 July 2003 - 02:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-lynx@24 July 2003 - 18:32

Or, just for once, you could keep your noses at home, unblock your ears and listen to what the rest of the world thinks about your interference.
Well yes, I suppose that would be an option, also.

I am, more and more, in agreement with the famous philosopher Eric Cartman-"Screw you guys, I&#39;m going home&#33;"
*

I&#39;d like nothing more than to concentrate our resources on fixing up the old homestead.


* A reference that I hope went flying miles over your head lynx, as South Park represents the juggernaut of American cultural imperialism at it&#39;s very worst (but funniest). [/b][/quote]
Ah, South Park, the story of US &#39;friendly fire&#39;.

ilw
07-25-2003, 10:19 AM
I always liked
"They&#39;re coming right for us"

lynx
07-25-2003, 10:23 AM
I was thinking more along the lines of &#39;They killed Kenny&#39;.

myfiles3000
07-25-2003, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by clocker+25 July 2003 - 00:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 25 July 2003 - 00:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-myfiles3000@24 July 2003 - 07:33

judging by the article below, the long-term plans of the us are to employ ever-more technological solutions to avoid things like compromise, consensus and cooperation in an interdependant world. in this case, hypersonic aircraft will allow the US to take all its marbles home and not have to depend on foreign-soil airbases.


I&#39;m sorry, but I don&#39;t see how you get from point A to point B in this sentence, Myfiles. [/b][/quote]
i think Turkey is great example -- the US insists on taking action most of the rest of the world isn&#39;t comfortable with and this doesn&#39;t deter them. Instead of approaching it from a "Why did so much of the world refuse to provide support? What did we do that alienated them? How can we change our foreign policy to build more consensus in the future?", the USA just builds supersonic jet planes so they don&#39;t need cooperation from the rest of the world.

I think the "Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle" is symptomatic of US mentality. They don&#39;t see human or relational solutions, they see technological ones. I find it mildly distressing, frankly.

EDIT:

To clarify, the turkey reference was their refusal to allow the US to launch the air campaign on Iraq, which really compromised the war plan.

This phenomenon is also seen in those moronic cop chase shows, which often showcase some new, expensive technology to help catch the bad guys. Its at moments like this that I really start to believe that certain (non-white) neighbourhoods are living under something that resembles a police state. The problem is, since so much of American empire, politics and trade is rooted in the defence industry the solution is seen in war-like terms. Anyone with a first-year crim class under their belt can tell you that poverty in particular is highly correlated with crime. But Americans don&#39;t want to spend money on social spending to try to alleviate systemic poverty...they want to award contracts to defence firms for infra-red cameras on city police choppers, etc

Neil__
07-25-2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000+25 July 2003 - 14:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 25 July 2003 - 14:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by clocker@25 July 2003 - 00:26
<!--QuoteBegin-myfiles3000@24 July 2003 - 07:33

judging by the article below, the long-term plans of the us are to employ ever-more technological solutions to avoid things like compromise, consensus and cooperation in an interdependant world. in this case, hypersonic aircraft will allow the US to take all its marbles home and not have to depend on foreign-soil airbases.


I&#39;m sorry, but I don&#39;t see how you get from point A to point B in this sentence, Myfiles.
i think Turkey is great example -- the US insists on taking action most of the rest of the world isn&#39;t comfortable with and this doesn&#39;t deter them. Instead of approaching it from a "Why did so much of the world refuse to provide support? What did we do that alienated them? How can we change our foreign policy to build more consensus in the future?", the USA just builds supersonic jet planes so they don&#39;t need cooperation from the rest of the world.

I think the "Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle" is symptomatic of US mentality. They don&#39;t see human or relational solutions, they see technological ones. I find it mildly distressing, frankly. [/b][/quote]



I thi9nk you hit the nail myfiles.

America doesn&#39;t want help they want to be the rule makers for all of us.

What a horrible place this planet would be if everything was Americanised.

I hate the idea happening here in the U.K.
The bit we have already makes me uneasy.
Imposing that way of life on other culture is extremely threatening and dangerous to world order.

If countries want to join us in capitalism that&#39;s their choice but what about the fantastic diversity that make us such an interesting species.

America just want&#39;s to assymilate other cultures so it can exploit them.

There not interested in world peace all they want is new markets.

Neil

Rat Faced
07-25-2003, 02:11 PM
That is a little bit of a generalisation :o

They DO have a friendly side... ;)

http://www.grif.org/stuff/rick.borg.gif

Neil__
07-25-2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@25 July 2003 - 15:11
That is a little bit of a generalisation&nbsp; :o

They DO have a friendly side... ;)


I taotally agree and I have said that many times over the last weeks.

America has been a great friend of the U.K. in the past but the present administration gives me cause for concern.

Also you cannot fully blame a people for it&#39;s leaders and no country is all bad.

Neil.

ilw
07-25-2003, 02:20 PM
EDIT: Ignore this i&#39;m talking crap

I&#39;m not disagreeing completely, but i think an important thing to note is that turkey said no, not because they disagreed with the war, but because they wanted more money from the americans.

myfiles3000
07-25-2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by ilw@25 July 2003 - 15:20
turkey said no, not because they disagreed with the war, but because they wanted more money from the americans.
on what authority do you make such a claim?&#33;

ilw
07-25-2003, 05:17 PM
Sorry I think i got mixed up (I was talking about allowing US troops to have a second frontier in N Iraq) and also jumped to the wrong conclusion, I remembered reading articles with the sort of content of:



The economic crisis was very much on the mind of Turkish negotiators when they came to Washington in February.


The Turks wants to stop Iraqi Kurds moving towards independence
The then Turkish Foreign Minister Yasir Yakis reportedly demanded &#036;92bn over four years in aid in return for Turkey&#39;s support in the crisis - 20 times the &#036;4bn the Bush administration was said to have offered.

The Turks also demanded written guarantees that Congress would pass any aid deal agreed with the president.

Eventually, after late-night negotiations with Mr Powell, the Turks won a larger package - reportedly &#036;6bn in aid plus loans - and President Bush told the Turks they were "great negotiators".

But the public spectacle in the US press, which accused them of "haggling like carpet salesman", embarrassed Turkey. (source bbc news website)

And I drew the wrong conclusions. Turkey were against the war & I apologise.

myfiles3000
07-25-2003, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@25 July 2003 - 14:20
But Americans don&#39;t want to spend money on social spending to try to alleviate systemic poverty...they want to award contracts to defence firms for infra-red cameras on city police choppers, etc
i&#39;d like to retract that statement, and replaced with the much more nuanced and accurate sentence:

imho, Americans are too likely to pass on more social spending to try to alleviate systemic poverty, in preference for awarding contracts to defence firms for infra-red cameras on city police choppers, etc

clocker
07-25-2003, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Neil__@25 July 2003 - 07:34


America doesn&#39;t want help they want to be the rule makers for all of us.

What a horrible place this planet would be if everything was Americanised.

I hate the idea happening here in the U.K.
The bit we have already makes me uneasy.
Imposing that way of life on other culture is extremely threatening and dangerous to world order.



America just want&#39;s to assymilate other cultures so it can exploit them.

There not interested in world peace all they want is new markets.

Neil
Baloney.

Any Americanization that may have occured in Britain was not forced on you, rather it was embraced by yourselves alone.
If you didn&#39;t like McDonalds, the stores would have failed.
If you didn&#39;t watch Friends advertisers wouldn&#39;t buy airtime and the show would be off the air.
Etc,etc.
Apparently capitalism works differently in the UK.
Your companies aren&#39;t interested in expanding their markets?
Let us know how that works out for you.

clocker
07-25-2003, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@25 July 2003 - 11:20

imho, Americans are too likely to pass on more social spending to try to alleviate systemic poverty, in preference for awarding contracts to defence firms for infra-red cameras on city police choppers, etc
Bull.
England leads all other countries in the use of video surveillance in an urban environment.*

*Source (http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/cctv/)

myfiles3000
07-25-2003, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by clocker+25 July 2003 - 19:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 25 July 2003 - 19:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-myfiles3000@25 July 2003 - 11:20

imho, Americans are too likely to pass on more social spending to try to alleviate systemic poverty, in preference for awarding contracts to defence firms for infra-red cameras on city police choppers, etc
Bull.
England leads all other countries in the use of video surveillance in an urban environment.*

*Source (http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/cctv/) [/b][/quote]
sorry to burst your bubble clocker, but logic dictates that your statement has no direct bearing on mine. it definitely doesn&#39;t refute my nuanced observation. i can supply examples of analogous statements for clarification if you like.

J'Pol
07-25-2003, 07:06 PM
In the current world situation the USA appears to be in a damned if you do, damned if you don&#39;t situation.

If they overthrow a tyrant they are accused of war-mongering.

If they don&#39;t overthrow a tyrant they are accused of being insensitive and not caring about the rest of the world.

What&#39;s a super power to do.

Rat Faced
07-25-2003, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by clocker+25 July 2003 - 18:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 25 July 2003 - 18:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-myfiles3000@25 July 2003 - 11:20

imho, Americans are too likely to pass on more social spending to try to alleviate systemic poverty, in preference for awarding contracts to defence firms for infra-red cameras on city police choppers, etc
Bull.
England leads all other countries in the use of video surveillance in an urban environment.*

*Source (http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/cctv/) [/b][/quote]
I agree Clocker United Kingdom leads on this one.

The local councils install &#39;em (often at the Residents request) on Housing Estates where there are known problems.

Business&#39; contribute to Installing them in Shopping Centres, and the Police put them up anyway in some City Centres (especially close to the Night Life areas).

In both cases, there is a dramatic drop in Crime in the areas where the CCTV has been installed.

You may not be surprised that the problem simply moves to the next estate along in the case of Housing Estates....

clocker
07-25-2003, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@25 July 2003 - 12:13

sorry to burst your bubble clocker, but logic dictates that your statement has no direct bearing on mine. it definitely doesn&#39;t refute my nuanced observation. i can supply examples of analogous statements for clarification if you like.
My apologies, Myfiles.
Your Canadian sublety escapes me.
Being a stupid American is sooo trying, sometimes.

myfiles3000
07-25-2003, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by clocker+26 July 2003 - 00:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 26 July 2003 - 00:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-myfiles3000@25 July 2003 - 12:13

sorry to burst your bubble clocker, but logic dictates that your statement has no direct bearing on mine. it definitely doesn&#39;t refute my nuanced observation. i can supply examples of analogous statements for clarification if you like.
My apologies, Myfiles.
Your Canadian sublety escapes me.
Being a stupid American is sooo trying, sometimes. [/b][/quote]
toad.

clocker
07-26-2003, 12:47 AM
Ribbet.

Styx
07-27-2003, 03:36 AM
Originally posted by JPaul+23 July 2003 - 17:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 23 July 2003 - 17:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Styx@23 July 2003 - 15:31
The last time i remember a popular war taking place on shonky evidence with civilians dropping everything to rush off to the front was with the crusades... remeber Prester John and his letter?


Flippin heck, I thought I was old. [/b][/quote]
lmao. - spends too much time reading history books-


QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 25 July 2003 - 11:20)

imho, Americans are too likely to pass on more social spending to try to alleviate systemic poverty, in preference for awarding contracts to defence firms for infra-red cameras on city police choppers, etc&nbsp;


Bull.
England leads all other countries in the use of video surveillance in an urban environment.*

*Source

True, the uk does lead in survelliance of urban areas, and in developing the technology i think, but america is the more capitalist scociety (not saying there&#39;s any thing wrong with that) and is more likely to give up social security programs in favour of ordinary security. They have a more &#39;go it alone&#39; type psychi.

I sincerely sympathise with the point of view that just beacuse a leader of country is bad, it doesn&#39;t mean that the country is. If that was true (the country and the leader were of one mind) then us in Australia would be seriously stuffed.

I was severly mortified for Australia over the asylum seekers, Woomera and the &#39;pacific soultion&#39;.

Mr JP Fugley
04-06-2007, 09:31 PM
See, stuff in The Lounge

jimbo12345
04-07-2007, 02:42 AM
In my field of work, I am responsible for many different people, each of whom I am counting on, to perform their duties properly.

If someone screws up, it is MY fault or at least I am held accountable. I may recognize internally that a team individual messed up or mislead me, and I replace that person, but in the end, I, alone, must step forward and assume the failure.

This is the essence of leadership, ultimate responsibilty. Finger pointing is an internal process, not a public one. If Blair and Britain gave bad intelligence, Bush and Blair need to settle this amongst themselves. Bush must tell the American people that whatever comes from his mouth is his responsibilty.


Jesus, it's Mr Brittas.

Honestly, i have this strong dislike for you from nowhere. Lets hope i never work for you.