Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Thrawn on October 01, 2002, 03:16:25 PM
-
"Tuesday October 1, 2002 1:50 AM
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) - Atomic energy officials said Monday that a substance seized by police near the Syrian border was not weapons-grade uranium as Turkish officials first reported, according to the Anatolia news agency.
Atomic Energy Institute chief Guler Koksal said the material was harmless, containing zinc, iron, zirconium and manganese. "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2055139,00.html
-
Yea but Saddam WISHES it was Uranium, so we should bomb him into next week!
-
Hehe I bet those guys sold their mothers so they could buy that "uranium" :D
-
Hmmm... fishy. Very fishy.
-
It was being sold to al qaeda, who have been repeatedly ripped off in that manner. :D
-
"No really dude. This is the best Wyoming watermelon you can buy! Its Casper Red! Dude! I swear on my mother's grave its real dude!"
-
That'd be kewl if it turned out to be a little bottle of one-a-day vitamins.
Originally posted by Thrawn
"Tuesday October 1, 2002 1:50 AM
Atomic Energy Institute chief Guler Koksal said the material was harmless, containing zinc, iron, zirconium and manganese. "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2055139,00.html
-
I hope the International Court has the balls to prosecute any and all nations, groups or individuals who were involved in this fraudulent transaction to sell bogus weapons grade uranium to Iraq (probably our very own CIA, given thier history) and I demand a full congressional hearing on this matter.
I don't care what side of the issue you're on, you have to agree from a moral standpoint that if Sadaam Hussein is paying for weapons grade uranium then he deserves to get weapons grade uranium. Fraud is fraud people, and we in America stand on principles above practicalities.
-
That revilation was too hasty. They should have waited with it for a couple of weeks - after we invaded Iraq and killed it's leader under the false pretext.
Remember how US population was swayed to support liberation of that tiny medieval princedom Kuwait in 1991 when it heard about poor pre-term babies cruelly ripped out of their incubators by ruthless Iraqi agressors - which proved to be a hoax?
miko
-
Miko, are you meaning to suggest that there wasn't 100, 000 executed albanians either ?
:eek:
-
Originally posted by miko2d
That revilation was too hasty. They should have waited with it for a couple of weeks - after we invaded Iraq and killed it's leader under the false pretext.
Remember how US population was swayed to support liberation of that tiny medieval princedom Kuwait in 1991 when it heard about poor pre-term babies cruelly ripped out of their incubators by ruthless Iraqi agressors - which proved to be a hoax?
miko
It's true. In fact the Iraqi soldiers were reading the babies bedtime stories and preparing warm milk for them when US warplanes bombed the maternity ward and massacred the babies.
Emotional appeals go both ways.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Remember how US population was swayed to support liberation of that tiny medieval princedom Kuwait in 1991 when it heard about poor pre-term babies cruelly ripped out of their incubators by ruthless Iraqi agressors - which proved to be a hoax?
miko
Looking out my window and thinking........ maan that was a blast in 90-91. Almost got a tear in my eye, boy those were the days.
-
fd ski: Miko, are you meaning to suggest that there wasn't 100, 000 executed albanians either?
It might have been simple misunderstanding - a 100 albanians each shot 1000 times.
A simple accounting error could have occured when a 1000 dutch UN "peacekeepers" supervised orderly execution of each of a 100 of albanians they were entrusted to protect and each filed a report and they could have got added instead of collated...
-Sikboy: Emotional appeals go both ways.
Too true - because ithey are effective. If anyone appealed to reason, people could have asked "Why the heck would those iraqi waste time clearing the incubators?"
I wonder if those Iraqi peasants to whom we promised "liberation" are wondering why the heck did we kill about 100,000 of them in 1991 when Iraqi army was running away without any resistance? Why not just let them go instead of using them for targets on that "highway of death"? It's not like 100,000 dead peasants would make a noticeable dent in a population of Iraq - just make the remaining ones more hostile.
miko
-
Miko2d - you just don't get it do you? A weapons test is a scientific process that must be allowed to run its course.
Philistine.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Why not just let them go instead of using them for targets on that "highway of death"? It's not like 100,000 dead peasants would make a noticeable dent in a population of Iraq - just make the remaining ones more hostile.
Excellent point. Since those were just farmers and stuff. They weren't Iraqi soldiers trying to get Iraqi military equiptment back across the border.
-Sikboy
-
Limosines, Toyota pickups loaded with fridges and microwaves.
Crack Iraqi troops... in disguise. The only reason they didn't surrender is because the allies were buzzing above their heads on some live fire excercise.
I still remember an A-10 pilot being interviewed at the time, joyfully describing Basra as a 'Turkey Shoot'. I swear he was talking with a smile on his face. He was positively triumphant, like he'd achieved a great victory. I thought he was the biggest salamander to grace the airwaves (after David Mellor).
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
Limosines, Toyota pickups loaded with fridges and microwaves.
Crack Iraqi troops... in disguise. The only reason they didn't surrender is because the allies were buzzing above their heads on some live fire excercise.
I still remember an A-10 pilot being interviewed at the time, joyfully describing Basra as a 'Turkey Shoot'. I swear he was talking with a smile on his face. He was positively triumphant, like he'd achieved a great victory. I thought he was the biggest salamander to grace the airwaves (after David Mellor).
you'd rather have seen Iraq footage of a SA missile destroying his plane?
every war has a winner and a loser
NEWS FLASH
Iraq started it
&
Iraq LOST
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
"Tuesday October 1, 2002 1:50 AM
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) - Atomic energy officials said Monday that a substance seized by police near the Syrian border was not weapons-grade uranium as Turkish officials first reported, according to the Anatolia news agency.
Atomic Energy Institute chief Guler Koksal said the material was harmless, containing zinc, iron, zirconium and manganese. "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2055139,00.html
It turns out the substance was Mama Shrub’s shake and bake recipe.
Too bad though, another scam uncovered before its time. If this little ruse sparked an Iraq invasion, it would rank right up there with other government sponsored hoaxes:
1) Pearl Harbor
2) Gulf of Tonkin
3) Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait
4) Toppling of the World Trade Centers.
-
Originally posted by blur
It turns out the substance was Mama Shrub’s shake and bake recipe.
Too bad though, another scam uncovered before its time. If this little ruse sparked an Iraq invasion, it would rank right up there with other government sponsored hoaxes:
1) Pearl Harbor
2) Gulf of Tonkin
3) Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait
4) Toppling of the World Trade Centers.
Peee Ewwwww... that is stinky!
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
Limosines, Toyota pickups loaded with fridges and microwaves.
Crack Iraqi troops... in disguise. The only reason they didn't surrender is because the allies were buzzing above their heads on some live fire excercise.
Come on Dowding, even those who decry the attack don't deny that they were withdrawing Iraqi military units.
You should probably stick with condeming the timing of the attack, and the weapons used.
-Sikboy
-
Nah, Sikboy. I couldn't care less.
The whole thing was a set-up by capitilistic Western pig-dogs in a neo-Imperialistic attempt to control oil flow, in order to sustain their decadent, comfortable lifestyles.
-
Atleast we don't have bad teeth Dowding.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Nah, Sikboy. I couldn't care less.
The whole thing was a set-up by capitilistic Western pig-dogs in a neo-Imperialistic attempt to control oil flow, in order to sustain their decadent, comfortable lifestyles.
That's the Spirit! :p
-Sikboy
-
Sooooooo...
Its OK to win a war, just don't win too big. Kinda like beating the spread.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Excellent point. Since those were just farmers and stuff. They weren't Iraqi soldiers trying to get Iraqi military equiptment back across the border.
They were iraqi soldiers drafted under threat of death to fight for him - which they were not doing since they were running.
Since we never intended to pursue them into Iraq, we could notc are less if they take their junk with them.
If we needed that equipment to stay in Kuwait for some unfathomable reason, we could have used a couple of cratering bombs on the highway or just used our Spec-Op tropps to put "CLOSED" sign on the gas station.
Killing those poor bastards made as much sense as killing hundreds of thousands germans in Dresden just before US liberated them from nazi regime and befriended them.
Come on Dowding, even those who decry the attack don't deny that they were withdrawing Iraqi military units.
And withdrawas of Iraqi military inits was exactly what we set to achieve, so what the purpose of killing them other than satisfy the murderous urges of a few sick people in our military? I though soldiers took pride in fighting, not gratuitous violence.
Eagler: Iraq started it & Iraq LOST
Those farmers did not have any say in it and their deaths were in no way necessary for US to still insure that Iraq lost. The responcible for invasion were not punished in any way.
Your logic could be used to justify deaths of 3000 civilians on 9/11 - someone in US pissed them off and we lost the terror strike, right?
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Since we never intended to pursue them into Iraq, we could notc are less if they take their junk with them.
If we needed that equipment to stay in Kuwait for some unfathomable reason, we could have used a couple of cratering bombs on the highway or just used our Spec-Op tropps to put "CLOSED" sign on the gas station.
It's just that easy isn't it? I'm curious to see how this would have been accomplished.
And withdrawas of Iraqi military inits was exactly what we set to achieve, so what the purpose of killing them other than satisfy the murderous urges of a few sick people in our military? I though soldiers took pride in fighting, not gratuitous violence.
Oh, a false Dilemma. I like those.
I am not in a position to fully appreciate the tactical descision that was made on Feb 26-27th. The United States continued to engage Iraqi forces on those days, during and after the withdrawel from Kuwait. The units engaged during that time were largely the Republican Guard units (not just Joe 6-pack with his draft card in his pocket). There was a battle going on, and without a surrender I don't see how a military man could allow large enemy formations to withdraw, given that they could regroup and counterattack.
-Sikboy
-
miko: If we needed that equipment to stay in Kuwait for some unfathomable reason, we could have used a couple of cratering bombs on the highway or just used our Spec-Op tropps to put "CLOSED" sign on the gas station.
Sikboy: It's just that easy isn't it? I'm curious to see how this would have been accomplished.
Like this: Take an airplane into the air. Drop a few bombs on the road, so the wheeled transport cannot get through. In case some iraqis bother to carry their vehicles over the resulting craters rather than leave them and walk, destroy any fuel dumps/gas stations close to the road. Done.
How about this dilemma for you: one dictator (Hussein) wanted to take ownetship of 700,000 peasants (kuwaitis) from another dictator (whichever sheikh) and also his oil reserves (which he would sell to the same buyer and close friend US of A). To thwart that plan we killed 100,000 peasants.
So all the peaseants are still ruled by dictators (except for 100,000 dead ones) and the oil still belongs to the same dictators.
There was a battle going on, and without a surrender I don't see how a military man could allow large enemy formations to withdraw, given that they could regroup and counterattack.
Did anyone offer those bastards to surrender? We shot people who had no way of shooting back and could only theoretically hurt us at a later date because we declared war on their country.
According to that logic of yours, Al-Qaeda declared war on us years ago and was justified blowing up 3000 civilians because those could have regrouped, got drafted into the army and hurt them back at some later date.
P.S. I participated in a war where helpless enemy soldiers, prisoners, women and children were murdered for reasons and in ways that would not be found acceptable by civilised societies. But I am not such a hyppocrite as to justify it or take pride in it.
miko
-
miko
as far as I know we killed Iraq soldiers who were retreating
if you have special inside knowledge or video pls enlightened us with it
I do not compare anything that happened then with 9/11
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Like this: Take an airplane into the air. Drop a few bombs on the road, so the wheeled transport cannot get through. In case some iraqis bother to carry their vehicles over the resulting craters rather than leave them and walk, destroy any fuel dumps/gas stations close to the road. Done.
Wow, that's a very over simplified way of looking at it. I suggest that your plan would not work.
How about this dilemma for you: one dictator (Hussein) wanted to take ownetship of 700,000 peasants (kuwaitis) from another dictator (whichever sheikh) and also his oil reserves (which he would sell to the same buyer and close friend US of A). To thwart that plan we killed 100,000 peasants.
So all the peaseants are still ruled by dictators (except for 100,000 dead ones) and the oil still belongs to the same dictators.
I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with the question at hand? I mean I've already followed you as youve changed from "Iraqi soldiers killing newborns" to "US Forces engaged a combatant enemy in an engagement I dissagree with" I'm certainly not enlarging this debate to include the root causes of the war.
Did anyone offer those bastards to surrender? We shot people who had no way of shooting back and could only theoretically hurt us at a later date because we declared war on their country.
Yes actually, I'm glad you brough that up. http://www.btinternet.com/~rrnotes/psywarsoc/fleaf/gulfapp.htm
does a pretty good job of summing up the US efforts to encourage Iraqi troops to surrender.
According to that logic of yours, Al-Qaeda declared war on us years ago and was justified blowing up 3000 civilians because those could have regrouped, got drafted into the army and hurt them back at some later date.
No, because as I've said before these were soldiers. They were armed combatats that were ambushed and slaughtered.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
They were armed combatats
Got any references for that?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Got any references for that?
Just a cursory glance gives me John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists with a report on the use of Airpower in the war who states:
A much televised testament to the war's destruction concerns the "death's highway" route of an Iraqi armored column on the road to Basra late in the conflict. Reports indicate that individual Iraqis panicked at the rate of their destruction and actually blasted other Iraqi vehicles in an attempt to clear an escape route.(19) The peak rate of destruction of Iraqi armored vehicles during Operation Desert Storm was over 500 vehicles per day
(paper can be found online at: http://fas.org/spp/aircraft/part08.htm )
I have never actually seen anything that denies large numbers of Iraqi combatants involved in the action.
-Sikboy
-
here's an interview with a bloodthirsty American who has overcome his bloodlust long enough to talk to PBS's frontline.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/horner/5.html
-Sikboy
-
"The Iraqi troops were not being driven out of Kuwait by U.S. troops as the Bush administration maintains. They were not retreating in order to regroup and fight again. In fact, they were withdrawing, they were going home, responding to orders issued by Baghdad, announcing that it was complying with Resolution 660 and leaving Kuwait. At 5:35 p.m. (Eastern standard Time) Baghdad radio announced that Iraq's Foreign Minister had accepted the Soviet cease-fire proposal and had issued the order for all Iraqi troops to withdraw to postions held before August 2, 1990 in compliance with UN Resolution 660. President Bush responded immediately from the White House saying (through spokesman Marlin Fitzwater) that "there was no evidence to suggest the Iraqi army is withdrawing. In fact, Iraqi units are continuing to fight. . . We continue to prosecute the war." On the next day, February 26, 1991, Saddam Hussein announced on Baghdad radio that Iraqi troops had, indeed, begun to withdraw from Kuwait and that the withdrawal would be complete that day. Again, Bush reacted, calling Hussein's announcement "an outrage" and "a cruel hoax."
Eyewitness Kuwaitis attest that the withdrawal began the afternoon of February 26, 1991 and Baghdad radio announced at 2:00 AM (local time) that morning that the government had ordered all troops to withdraw. "
-
The Cruel Hoax line was from Feb. 15th, not the 26th. and the US Army was attacked by Iraqi units as recently as the 25th. Telling information from dissinformation is a lot easier 10 years later.
[edit]
wierd site btw :)
http://deoxy.org/deoxyf.htm
[/edit]
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
The Cruel Hoax line was from Feb. 15th, not the 26th. and the US Army was attacked by Iraqi units as recently as the 25th. Telling information from dissinformation is a lot easier 10 years later.
-Sikboy
Gotcha.
-
Sickboy,
I am not arguing that we did not have legal right to slaughter those poor bastards with impunity.
I am arguing that we should not have done so for other reasons having to do with morality and the "righteous" image that we try to present to the rest of the world.
We slaughter many more people than we have to and call ourselves "civilised" but than we complaing when someone does the same to us.
Kuwait was a decisive victory for US forces. I greatly admire them for well-organised low-casualty operation. If the enemy casualties were 5,000 instead of 100,000 my admiration would not have been any less.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
I am not arguing that we did not have legal right to slaughter those poor bastards with impunity.
I am arguing that we should not have done so for other reasons having to do with morality and the "righteous" image that we try to present to the rest of the world.
We slaughter many more people than we have to and call ourselves "civilised" but than we complaing when someone does the same to us.
Are you still drawing similarities between Sept. 11th and this? If so, then I believe that we are at an impass.
-Sikboy
-
So how many of you guys were actually there, or in combat at all...EVER. War sucks, people die, did the military know that people on the highway of death were "farmers" then.
Here's a new idea how about when someone slams planes into buildings we do well, nothing.
How about when some egomaniac dictator decides to invade another country we just sit back, it's their problem isn't it?
Let's just slap more sanctions on Iraq, Saddam looks like he hasn't had a nice large meal in about 2 hours.
I think we should let Iraq be Iraq and let them build up again and see what they could accomplish in the most globally variable piece of real estate on the planet. I could care less if the Gulf War was over oil, good for us (remember the retreating Iraq's set the wells ablaze.
Do you people think that if the US did a complete reversal in policy these people wouldn't come after us? if you do I'm sure Saddam would love to meet you.
Why the hell do you people even play AH? Go out buy the Sim's and have a ball.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Kuwait was a decisive victory for US forces. I greatly admire them for well-organised low-casualty operation. If the enemy casualties were 5,000 instead of 100,000 my admiration would not have been any less.
How about if we split the difference?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/appendix/death.html
-Sikboy
-
Bush seeks support for "U.S. Does Whatever It Wants Plan
UNITED NATIONS--In an address before the U.N. General Assembly Monday, President Bush called upon the international community to support his "U.S. Does Whatever It Wants" plan, which would permit the U.S. to take any action it wishes anywhere in the world at any time."
"As a shining beacon of freedom and democracy, America has inspired the world," said Bush in his 25-minute address. "With its military might, it has kept the peace and bravely defended the unalienable [sic] rights of millions around the globe. In this spirit, I call upon the world's nations to support my proposal to give America unrestricted carte blanche to remove whatever leaders, plunder whatever resources, and impose whatever policies it deems necessary or expedient."
http://www.theonion.com/onion3836/bush_seeks_un_support.html
-
narsus,
Are you saying that we should never question the government?
Are you suggesting that America is about "what GWB says"?
Have you forgotten what it is we are, and why people like Bin Laden go nutso about us?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Have you forgotten what it is we are, and why people like Bin Laden go nutso about us?
I love you guys
:)
-Sikboy
-
can't believe the liberals are still crying about killing too many enemy in the gulf war, i guess it's ok to kill some but not too many.
instead of condeming saddam who started the damm war , the liberals condem the USA for "wining too big"
if the 500,000 'farmboys' didn't want to go to war , why didn't they go to bagdad and over throw saddam?
before the gulf war Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world and saddam promised us the "mother of all battles" , so how would you attack the 4th largest army in the world? like LBJ with a little poke here and a little poke there. (viet nam)
i notice you liberals say nothing about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqs that surrenderd and were treated well and sent back to Iraq after the war.
-
I am not a liberal. I am a libertarian - a right wing conservative except the religious crap and legislating the morality.
I am not worried about killing too many enemies. I am worried about killing people who are not our enemies. We claim now that we want to free iraqis from Hussein - the same iraqis that we slaughtered when they were running away from Kuwait.
I am also worried about trying to be friends with people we should be killing. OBL was not a good choice. Saudi Arabia is not a good choice. Kuwaiti dictatorship is not a good choice - we have nothing in common with them.
Why do we care if Iraq grabbed Kuwait?
And about that "we had to kill them because they could have posed danger" - pure crap.
We expected them to be danger and went to protect property rights of some kuwaiti princes.
After we smashed the iraqi army and saw clearly that it did not pose any danger - we suddenly got scared of a bunch of a peasants running away and decided to slaughter them just in case...
i notice you liberals say nothing about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqs that surrenderd and were treated well and sent back to Iraq after the war.
What's to say? Isn't that how prosoners of war are supposed to be treated, especially those who had no choice whether to enroll?
if the 500,000 'farmboys' didn't want to go to war , why didn't they go to bagdad and over throw saddam?
Yeah, blame the victims... How dare they to be opressed!
May be they needed a little help - like US army hitting Hussein and his oppression machine instead of slaughtering the serfs.
The french intervention made US independence possible. Why do you expect more from iraqis?
miko
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
I still remember an A-10 pilot being interviewed at the time, joyfully describing Basra as a 'Turkey Shoot'. I swear he was talking with a smile on his face. He was positively triumphant, like he'd achieved a great victory. I thought he was the biggest salamander to grace the airwaves (after David Mellor).
And I actually flew a 4-day trip with a man that was #2 in the second flight of A-10's to arrive at the highway.
He was smiling too and saying it was a "Turkey Shoot". The difference is in THIS little detail: He said that the Iraquis had abandoned almost all of the vehicles after the first flight had killed the lead and trailing vehicles. He said you could see them running across the desert away from the highway and the vehicles. He said there was essentially no return fire because no one was in or around the vehicles. He said it was like being at the range, only with lots more targets.
Excuse me if I believe him rather than your version of a broadcast "highlight" interview.
Have any details on how many Iraqi soldiers actually died in that incident? No? Why am I not suprised. Lots of dead VEHICLES in those photos though.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
The french intervention made US independence possible. Why do you expect more from iraqis?
miko
Miko, you're well-versed in history.
Surely you recall that the "colonials" were seriously engaged, at war and starting a revolution before:
A) The French Government provided aid
and, most importantly
B) before the French Government landed troops to help in the fighting.
Were there to be a serious widespread attempt at Revolution in Iraq, I'm sure an amazing amount of aid and troops would be near instantly forthcoming.
-
I'm a liberal and I have no problem with the Turkey Shoot. Once a war is entered then we should fight to win.
-
But should the combatants enjoy it so much? After all, the enemy was a conscripted force, I would assume the war had not lasted long enough for any true hate to develop and they had not committed huge atrocity (compared to the Kuwaiti regime, anyway).
There's taking pride in your work, for sure - but getting off on it is another thing all together...
Excuse me if I believe him rather than your version of a broadcast "highlight" interview.
Eh? What exactly am I supposed to be lying about? The fact that the interview took place? Please... it wasn't 'my' version. The reason I remember it was because the way in which the pilot talked - there were even people phoning in complaining about it.
Anyway, believe what you like. It's debatable exactly how an A-10 pilot busily flying a fast jet in a combat situation could count how many were running away...
Have any details on how many Iraqi soldiers actually died in that incident? No? Why am I not suprised. Lots of dead VEHICLES in those photos though.
Do you have any details on exactly how many ran away compared to how many stayed or were trapped?
No? Why am I not surprised.
Have you not seen the pictures of Basra? I mean the up close and personal shots on the ground - are you denying there was a significant loss of life?
And what of the aftermath? The area where the massacre took place is fenced off completely, but recently journalists managed to get in with geiger counters. Guess what they found? Yep, elevated levels of radiation from the depleted uranium. Who knows what effect this has had on the environment... apart from the increased number of children born with birth defects in the South of the country of course...
-
hehehe
what is nice is the fact that this President has the balls and power to do what is right for the country & , whether they like it or not, the rest of the free world
All the whining and hand wringing from the peace nik liberal handsomehunkcrats can't change that fact :)
Funny how all of a sudden, after goron, dashole & the 3-dems-in-iraq-stooges made televised fools of themselves and their party, the dems are are giving Bush the ok
life is good
and it'll be better after Nov :)
-
MT
I am not a big fan of Bush, he was the lesser of 2 evils IMO at the time. That doesn't mean I liked him, and I don't believe in not voting.
No, I haven't forgotten who we are. I think the weapon inspectors should go in, my ranting was about the supposed "highway of death" more than anything. My point is this, hypothetically if you knew about Hitler before he came to power would you kill him even if it meant your own death to save millions of lives. We know that Saddam when he gets the equipment will use it, perhaps not against Americans but Israel. Wouldn't you try to stop him, sanctions are not hurting Saddam personally. He is still in power and not hurting at all.
We don't have to go to war I agree, one bullet "could" solve this problem.
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
And what of the aftermath? The area where the massacre took place is fenced off completely, but recently journalists managed to get in with geiger counters. Guess what they found? Yep, elevated levels of radiation from the depleted uranium. Who knows what effect this has had on the environment... apart from the increased number of children born with birth defects in the South of the country of course... [/B]
Oh dear, our friend Post Hoc, ergo Propter Hoc has shown up. He's a bit late for this argument.
It's interesting to see how this has evolved, first it's about Uranium (or the lack thereof). Then "appeal to emotion" tactics. Then the Massacring of (apparently) civilians south of Basra, then the number of soldiers butchered, then the question of nessesity with regard to the attack, now we are back to Uranium! That's pretty cool.
-Sikboy
-
Kinda reminds me of Joni Mitchell's "Circle Game".
Speaking of music, do ya think those A-10 pilots played rock and roll .. ala Iron Eagle while they killed all those tanks and jeeps?
Just trying to get back on topic.
-
MT- I think they either played "The Killing Road" by Megadeth or "Seek & Destroy" by Metallica.
In any event, it was a war. They were retreating, sure... did they surrender?
-SW
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Kinda reminds me of Joni Mitchell's "Circle Game".
Speaking of music, do ya think those A-10 pilots played rock and roll .. ala Iron Eagle while they killed all those tanks and jeeps?
Just trying to get back on topic.
No, MT, we're supposed to get back to the root causes of the gulf war I think.
Um.... Sadam was evil and we um... had to free Kuwait.... um.... won't be fooled again
-Sikboy
-
Wait a minute.....
Your right! It was a left at Albuquerque! dam!
OK then back to Turkey!
I like mine with just a few aromatics and the stuffing on the side.
I think we're back on track now.
-
As the A-10 pilot gleefully described his actions, there was 'One Vision' by Queen playing in the background. I swear!! ;)
It was just like Iron Eagle.
-
Where is Toad?
He told me that the 150,000 civilian casualities reported by Soviet TV in 1991 is a lie...
Frankly speaking I still don't understand what the f#$k does comrade Bush want from Iraq. Looks like when the cat has nothing to do it licks his balls.
Miko, it seems to me that US now looks like the Brezhnev's time USSR, but much more agressive and absolutely arrogant in foreign politics... I have a friend from Kharkov, like you, he lives in US for maybe 4 years, and he says he can see how your country progresses to complete sovok...
-
Boroda: Miko, it seems to me that US now looks like the Brezhnev's time USSR, but much more agressive and absolutely arrogant in foreign politics... I have a friend from Kharkov, like you, he lives in US for maybe 4 years, and he says he can see how your country progresses to complete sovok...
Only in cultural and political sense - equalising outcomes, doublespeak and doublethink. Indignation instead of constructivism.
The arrogance and "might makes right" was prevalent at least since US invasion and occupation for the Phillipine republic in 1889. May be even earlier - Mexican war, annexation of Hawaii.
It's a natural historical process - a pile of power poorly guarded attracts scoundrels who work towards increasing the pile and removing it from the population's control. And righteous "quick and victorious" war is always a good excuse. Even a painfull prolonged defeat would do - like the notorious war on drugs.
Unlike Brezhnev's, propagation of our way of life is not written as the utmost tenet of our believes - so there is always a hope that the process is reversed. In fact it happened a few times - recoil into isolationism.
miko
-
Miko, my hat off for a wise man...
Unlike Brezhnev's, propagation of our way of life is not written as the utmost tenet of our believes
IMNSHO only imbeciles believed all Brezhnev's time propaganda.
Or maybe I just don't understand your language constructions? ;)
-
Boroda:
Unlike Brezhnev's, propagation of our way of life is not written as the utmost tenet of our believes
IMNSHO only imbeciles believed all Brezhnev's time propaganda.
Or maybe I just don't understand your language constructions? ;)
Bringing communism to the world was a mandatory tenet of the communist party - and falure to do that the prime cause of it's crash. Communism cannot coexist with free society unless there is a strictest Iron Curtain imposed - and internecine fight for power ensures that sooner or later people came to power who have no will to keep it up. Stalin could not have had a capable leutenant who could have continued his policies - so a bunch of relative incompetents came to power after him
At the same time bringing democracy and capitalism to the world is nowhere on the dogma list list of any US party policies. And coexistance with authoritorian regimes is not bad for democracy - it sometimes makes people appreciate it more.
For all we know, there may be a strong swing back towards isolationism and common sence from imperialism and political correctness in the american future.
But I wouldn't hold my breath.
miko
-
Bush owns a cat?
Originally posted by Boroda
Frankly speaking I still don't understand what the f#$k does comrade Bush want from Iraq. Looks like when the cat has nothing to do it licks his balls.
-
i thought bush was more of a dog person
-
Dowding:I still remember an A-10 pilot being interviewed at the time, joyfully describing Basra as a 'Turkey Shoot'. I swear he was talking with a smile on his face. He was positively triumphant, like he'd achieved a great victory. I thought he was the biggest salamander to grace the airwaves (after David Mellor).
Let's see... you think he's the "biggest salamander to ever grace the airwaves" because he was smiling and triumphant and acting like he achieved a great victory.
Well, he WAS triumphant and he did achieve a "great victory" in executing his mission. I'd have been smiling too, I think.
They sent the A-10's out to hunt Iraqi vehicles. The A-10's found them, they stalled the head and tail of the column as perfectly as it could be done in accordance with the doctrine and then they systematically destroyed the enemy vehicles with an incredible level of accuracy and without loss to themselves.
Damn straight he was proud, triumphant and smiling. He did his job. Extremely well. Without friendly loss.
From my point of view, he's an exemplary attack pilot.
I think how you feel about him says more about you than it does about him.
-
the use of depleted uranium in the Gulf War. (http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1999/nd99/nd99vonhippel.html)
" Nevertheless, these conclusions regarding depleted uranium seem reasonable:
Although the use of DU munitions has been controversial since the end of the Gulf War, the radiological effects from exposures to depleted uranium are almost surely minor—certainly too small to be detectable.
Given that, radiation from depleted uranium is highly unlikely to have been responsible in any way for either the "Gulf War Syndrome" among veterans or for any of the variety of illnesses observed in the Iraqi population since the war.[/b]
Some soldiers in armored vehicles hit by DU munitions, their rescuers, and individuals who spent prolonged periods of time in the vehicles as part of cleanup details (and who were not wearing adequate respiratory protection), may have inhaled enough DU dust to suffer heavy-metal effects. "
*********
"Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science
The Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science (EFNS), incorporated as a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization in 1949, publishes the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and manages other related programs from its office in Chicago.....
.....• EFNS provides non-technical, scientifically sound, policy-relevant information about nuclear weapons and other global security issues to the general public, policy makers, scientists, and journalists.
• EFNS serves as a reliable, high-quality global forum for diverse international opinions on the best means of reducing reliance on nuclear weapons as guarantors of security and as symbols of political status.
• EFNS reminds the world of the continuing danger posed by nuclear weapons—and the military, political, economic, and social conditions that contribute to armed conflict—by maintaining and publicizing the symbolic minutes-to-midnight "Doomsday Clock." "
These guys are pretty a-political. If anything, they'd probably be considered to be "liberals".
So, given THEIR science, what do you have to counter it other than newsreporters giving their opinion? I'm always willing to be edu-ma-cated.
Is the DU a real threat or not?
-
These two-page threads! Can't skip a thing.
Here ya go:
CNN Gulf War Facts (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/)
"Iraq
In June 1991, the U.S. estimated that more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, 300,000 were wounded, 150,000 deserted and 60,000 were taken prisoner. Many human rights groups claimed a much higher number of Iraqis were killed in action.
According to Baghdad, civilian casualties numbered more than 35,000. However, since the war, some scholars have concluded that the number of Iraqi soldiers who were killed was significantly less than initially reported."
35,000 from BAGHDAD[/u], Boroda. The Iraqis themselves.
****
Then there's this summation from different sources:
Compiled sources (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat6.htm#Gulf)
Gulf War (1990-91)
Shortly after the war, the US Defense Intelligence Agency made a very rough estimate of 100,000 Iraqi deaths, and this order of magnitude is widely accepted -- even improved upon:
B&J: 50,000 to 100,000
Compton's: 150,000 Iraqi soldiers killed
World Political Almanac 3rd: 150,000 incl. civilians.
Our Times: 200,000.
Other authoritative sources working with more detailed data have come up with lower numbers.
The British govt. put the death toll at 30,000 (War Annual 6, 1994)
A May 1992 report by the US House Armed Services Committee estimated that 9,000 Iraqis were killed by the air campaign.
The PBS news show Frontline estimates 2300 civilians , 10-20,000 military in air war and, 10,000 military in the ground war; for a total of 27,300 ±5000. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/appendix/death.html)
Because the advancing American Army found only 577 dead bodies and captured only 800 wounded/sick prisoners (compared to 37,000 healthy prisoners), John Heidenrich (Foreign Policy, 22 March 1993) plausibly estimates the number of Iraqi military killed at 1,500 (probable) to 9,500 (absolute maximum), with fewer than 1000 civilians .
29 April 1999 AP : 4,500 to 45,000
Civilian death toll is put at 2,500 by US and 35,000 by Iraqis
The US lost 147 killed in battle and 289 dead otherwise. The other Coalition members lost 92 dead.
NOTE: Subtracting the civilian estimates from the estimated total indicates that AP puts the military deaths in roughly the same range as Heidenreich: 2,000 to 10,000
Dict.Wars: 85,000 Iraqi and 240 Coalition soldiers.
Wm Arkin: 3,200 Iraqi civilians (cited in 4 Dec. 2001 WSJ [http://wsjclassroomedition.com/tj_120401_casu.htm] and 13 Jan. 2002 San Francisco Chronicle)
Martin Gilbert :
Coalition
USA: 145 k. in action and 121 k. in accidents.
UK: 24
Egypt: 10
UAE: 6
Iraqis: at least 8,000 in battle, and 5,000 civilians
25 July 1991 The Gazette (Montreal), citing a Greenpeace report by Wm Arkin :
Iraqi
Military: 100,000-120,000
Civilian: 62,400 to 99,400 (87% of dis./mal. after fighting stopped) (That's DISEASE and MALNUTRITION AFTER the war was OVER.
Post-war revolts in N + S Iraq: 30,000-100,000
Kuwaitis: 2,000-5,000
Coalition
US: 145 KIA + 2 mortally wd. + 121 in accidents = 268
Allies: 77
TOTAL: 345
8 Jan. 1992 Interpress, citing a later Greenpeace report by Arkin:
Iraqis
Military: 72,500-118,000
Civilian: 2,500-3,000 in bombing + 49,000-56,000 from dis./mal in 1990-91 (Again, AFTER the war was over)
Post-war revolts in N + S Iraq: 102,000-150,000 civilians & rebels + 5,000 Iraqi soldiers
11 Nov. 2000 Times [London]: 47 British soldiers
Kuwaiti civilians
24 Feb. 1991 St. Petersburg Times: acc2 Pentagon, 2,000-10,000 killed by Iraqis "in recent days"
7 March 1996, Guardian [London]: 600 missing since Iraqi occupation.
MEDIAN
Civilians
Iraqi : 2,750[/color]
Kuwaitis: 4,750
Total: 7,500
TOTAL: 75,000-85,000
Now, where else but in your "Soviet TV" reference do you see 150,000 civilians killed during the war.
Oh, BTW... check the numbers for those killed AFTER the war during revolts. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmm
Looks like the Coalition Forces in the Gulf War couldn't come close to killing the number of Iraqi civilians that the Iraqi leader managed quite easily.
And if I remember our first discussion correctly, I gave you several more diverse sources that put the total at or below ~35,000 while you were unable to come up with anything other than Soviet TV for your source.
-
All I can say, Toad, is that you didn't hear his comments. It wasn't 'pleased with a job well done' - it was far from that. It wasn't how I've heard servicemen describe successful missions before. I know I wasn't the only one disgusted with his tone; of all the interviews, press conferences etd, his is the only one I remember. Strange, that...
Anyway, I thought you were above personal attacks?
"Some soldiers in armored vehicles hit by DU munitions, their rescuers, and individuals who spent prolonged periods of time in the vehicles as part of cleanup details (and who were not wearing adequate respiratory protection), may have inhaled enough DU dust to suffer heavy-metal effects."
I think this paragraph is the most telling. Small particle inhalation, particularly when it has any ionizing properties is extremely harmful to the respiritory system. Particle size is also a key property - it's why paper dust produced in converting factories is not considered carcinogenic, whereas wood dust is.
Your report concentrates on the radiological effects - but I think it's a larger issue than that. It's possible the elevated radiation levels are 'safe' - but there is no denying a cause and effect scenario regarding post war environmental health. I find hard to believe all that DU lying around, as well as the chemicals from DU impacted vehicles have nothing to do with the situation.
Tell me, what are your thoughts on Gulf War Syndrome? Or do you believe it's a compensation scam, for instance?
-
I wasn't able to get on the internet when this story broke, but better late than never:
When a big story breaks, ignore what you hear for at least 5 days.
Remember, the KIA total on 9/11/01 was initially 16,000 or so.
Mike/wulfie
p.s. miko2d please email me at AH_wulfie@cox.net! I need an email address for you.
-
Well, I haven't seen the interview, so I'll stop here. But I'm still skeptical, having pretty much lived my adult working life with the guys that do those jobs. Overall an extremely high quality group of individuals; not the sort to revel in the killing of other humans. They will revel in the shot well made or the job well done, however. If you think about it, one would have to be able to disassociate the job from the killing, wouldn't one?
Do tell, though. where's the personal attack in any of that? I merely said that you revealed more about yourself (to me anyway) than you did about the A-10 pilot.
I find THIS paragraph the most telling, which is why I quoted it before:
Given that, radiation from depleted uranium is highly unlikely to have been responsible in any way for either the "Gulf War Syndrome" among veterans or for any of the variety of illnesses observed in the Iraqi population since the war.
[/color]
I think there probably are health issues related to the Gulf War. I don't think you can group them to one cause, however. We innoculated the troops with a lot of "new" vaccines and such. There may well have been chemical/bio weapon use or the destruction of chemical/bio weapons may have spread some of the agents. There's DU, although that report pretty clearly highlights who would be most at risk there. I'm sure there's also so "scammers" in there too; there always is when talk of money gets around.
So is there a Gulf War Syndrome? I don't know. If there is I suspect its not from one single cause but several. But I'll take the EFNS report on DU over that of a few reporters trying to sell Sunday papers.
-
I think 'Gulf War Syndrome' was caused by alot of guys (mainly reservists) getting a ton of vaccinations, etc. all at the same time (when us regular guys got most of them on a normal 'schedule') and then, with weakened immune systems from said vaccinations, they were exposed to alot fo bad stuff (smoke from burning oil fires, maybe trace elements of chem/bio weaponry), etc.
That oil fire smoke was freakin' nasty, certainly didn't do anything good for anyone exposed to it.
Also, the heavy immunizations all at the same time - that's the reason little kids have them spaced out, so as to not overtax the immune system.
From official study it looks like the weakened immune system combined with the contaminants caused ALS like effects and symptoms in alot of guys.
Mike/wulfie
-
Most of those vehicles on the so called "Highway of Death" were
empty before they were destroyed.