Quagmire?

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'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't you believe US 'CentCom' about the cluster munitions?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@1 July 2003 - 07:43
Btw, Just because you can show weapons exist doesn'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.

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'll get pages and pages of terrorist reports from newspapers.

Put "Military Jargon" in, and you'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 ;)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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?