#1: Now *that's* someone who grew up in a guilt culture.
|
| Posted by: Shipman|| 2003-11-13 1:56:17 PM
Top||
|
| #2: I dunno, sounds more like His Bossness got really po'd when his bicycle went missing and ... (pause) turned the guys world to SHIT! :D |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 7:17:47 PM
Top||
|
#1: (Q) Did the early Hawawians ever get food poisoning?
(A) Yes, when too many soups spoiled da Cook.
|
| Posted by: Shipman|| 2003-11-13 11:51:33 AM
Top||
|
#2: Otherwise known as:
"One man's meat is another man's poi, son".
BTW - Cook wasn't officially cannibalized. The locals did chop him up pretty fine, but the only dining came when a couple of kids came across what they thought was a big dog or pig heart. |
| Posted by: Mercutio|| 2003-11-13 2:14:58 PM
Top||
|
#3: I thought some parts (heart) were cermonialy stewed. Weren'd some bones (thigh?) recently returned?
|
| Posted by: Shipman|| 2003-11-13 3:28:24 PM
Top||
|
| #2: Been there, got shook up. It was worth it, though, not to have the NY winters I've got now! |
| Posted by: rkb>rkb|| 2003-11-13 10:30:24 AM
Top||
|
| #3: The Zionists have completed their weather machine! We're all doomed! |
| Posted by: Charles>Charles|| 2003-11-13 11:30:38 AM
Top||
|
| #4: Actually a Earthquake hit durring the fires, a 5.0 aftershock of the Northridge quake. |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 12:29:39 PM
Top||
|
| #5: Locusts, and then the rivers turn to blood (or at least the aqueduct does). This will continue until the television execs quit putting out 'Reality TV' shows. |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 1:25:30 PM
Top||
|
| #7: Good News from California... An earthquake just unleashed a mud slide that put out the wildfire! |
| Posted by: Capsu78|| 2003-11-13 2:55:09 PM
Top||
|
| #1: Thats assturban to you! |
| Posted by: CrazyFool>CrazyFool|| 2003-11-13 1:20:39 PM
Top||
|
| #2: Btw, according to one - french, but as credible as they go - terrorist expert we had here on teevee yesterday, there's is an OBL tape (you know, theses "new" tapes) scheduled to be shown at the end of the ramadan; apparently, it is already circulating and he saw/heard it. |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 2:33:19 PM
Top||
|
#1: Same deal we've had with them from the beginning. You surrender and give up or we kill you. A cave with OBL splattered on the wall Taliban HQ is just taking a play out of Arafish's playbook. |
| Posted by: Charles>Charles|| 2003-11-13 12:50:43 AM
Top||
|
#1: Who the hell forms a committee with only two people in it?
One Chief and one Indian. |
| Posted by: Steve White>Steve White|| 2003-11-13 1:39:23 AM
Top||
|
| #2: well if each of them is of half a mind, sounds reasonable |
| Posted by: Frank G>Frank G|| 2003-11-13 11:27:30 AM
Top||
|
#3: Hmmm.... "committee meetings followed by ritual violence... sounds like the NFL."
George Will (?)
|
| Posted by: Shipman|| 2003-11-13 11:49:13 AM
Top||
|
#4: Is anyone else reminded of 'Life of Brian'?
"Is this the Judean People's Front?"
"FECK OFF!! We're the People's Front of Judea!" |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 1:52:34 PM
Top||
|
#5: Isn't this the plot for those old Mickey Rooney-Judy Garland movies:
"Hey kids, let's put on a government!!!"
"Yea, we can legislate in the barn!!!"
"I'll get my mom to make military uniforms!!!" |
| Posted by: JDB|| 2003-11-13 4:54:53 PM
Top||
|
| #2: "Oh, hold me, Fatimah!" |
| Posted by: Fred>Fred|| 2003-11-13 3:17:10 PM
Top||
|
| #3: What say that we compromise? Ghada can wear a swimsuit while she hoses some infidels poolside with an AK-47 and two back-to-back taped banana clips. That should bring it back into the spirit of Ramadan. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul|| 2003-11-13 3:35:39 PM
Top||
|
| #4: Just googled the "brazen hussy's" name but no file photos came back on her. Robert Crawford's point above is well taken: Just what does it say about the masculinity of a culture that gets whacked out of shape over a scene of belly dancing. Speaking of belly dancing, in my opinion, it's the only art form worth a damn coming out of the Middle East. |
| Posted by: Mark>Mark|| 2003-11-13 5:45:43 PM
Top||
|
#1: "We respect the United States' position on terrorism," he said. " The foreign minister also said, "Peace in Iraq should lead to the elimination of terrorism."
Quick Ethel, my pills! No-o-o, the big ORANGE ones!
Is this guy for real? Is this an Arab and a Muslim saying this? I want to do a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Test on him right now: he might be sane! |
| Posted by: Steve White>Steve White|| 2003-11-13 1:43:33 AM
Top||
|
#2: Tunisia - generally relatively moderate, trying to modernize economically, in some respects resembling Morocco.
Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Kuwait on a good day, and most Iraqis. More sanity out there than one might think. (Of course on the other side is Egypt, Saudi, Syria, Sudan, Libya, the Pals, some gulfies, and the bitterenders in Iraq.) |
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-11-13 9:11:18 AM
Top||
|
| #3: Tunis took a big step fwd in getting rid of Arafat |
| Posted by: Frank G>Frank G|| 2003-11-13 11:29:07 AM
Top||
|
#4: The Tunisian government has forbidden pilgrimage to Mecca ("the country cannot afford the loss of cash"), and it discourages or forbids (not sure)
praying five times a day or fasting for Ramadan as
bad for productivity. Tunisia has also a very liberal legislation about women. Finally, Tunisian Islamists tend to die young.
Tunisia is far closer to Atataturk's Turkey than to Saudi Arabia.
|
| Posted by: JFM>JFM|| 2003-11-13 3:42:00 PM
Top||
|
| #5: Forgot to mention: the main industry of Tunisia is textile and its main business partners are the Jewish textile merchants of Marais (zone of Paris). |
| Posted by: JFM>JFM|| 2003-11-13 4:41:28 PM
Top||
|
| #6: Tunisia has been friendly to the U.S. for many years. The current government is a class act. |
| Posted by: R. McLeod|| 2003-11-13 7:45:07 PM
Top||
|
| #1: I like the name Charles Black Mamba - if he doesn't suceed in overthrowing the regime, he may have a future in wrestling. |
| Posted by: Super Hose>Super Hose|| 2003-11-13 7:55:14 PM
Top||
|
| #2: Isn't that what he's doing now? |
| Posted by: Fred>Fred|| 2003-11-13 8:29:30 PM
Top||
|
| #2: Comeon he was just playing 'hide the banana'. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool>CrazyFool|| 2003-11-13 1:00:27 PM
Top||
|
| #3: I didn't realize a "banana split" meant being split by the banana? |
| Posted by: Dar>Dar|| 2003-11-13 3:29:27 PM
Top||
|
| #4: I noticed that they had to work in the fact that hew WAS a minister. I bet he was a butt pirate long before he became a minister. I wonder if Hillary would be this 'hard' on the 'staff' if she were in charge? Her husband did set the standard for 'Executive Orals'. Stop me! I have so many Clinton jokes! |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)>Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)|| 2003-11-13 3:43:55 PM
Top||
|
#5: "Honorary pallbearers at the funeral will include Fleegle, Snorky, Bingo, and Drooper, who co-starred with Mr. Banana in the popular 1968 television program 'The Banana Splits'".
A spokesman for the group refused to respond to questions regarding the allegations of a relationship between Mr. Banana and Snorky. |
| Posted by: snellenr>snellenr|| 2003-11-13 3:45:47 PM
Top||
|
| #1: Hmmm...personally, I would grade their security situation as "Needs Improvement." |
| Posted by: Seafarious>Seafarious|| 2003-11-13 3:39:50 PM
Top||
|
| #1: Is this the "high" season for qat in Yemen? |
| Posted by: Rafael|| 2003-11-13 12:16:27 AM
Top||
|
| #2: You know you're in deep shit if Yemen's got your back... |
| Posted by: tu3031|| 2003-11-13 12:22:09 AM
Top||
|
| #3: Yemen has those NK missles now. That makes them a heavey hitter in the ME. |
| Posted by: Lucky|| 2003-11-13 12:20:20 PM
Top||
|
| #4: Okay, Yemens on the list, thanks for clarifying things. |
| Posted by: Yank|| 2003-11-13 3:08:55 PM
Top||
|
| #1: " Could someone hand me my lips? " |
| Posted by: Charles>Charles|| 2003-11-13 12:42:56 AM
Top||
|
#1: "Before the war and during the early stages immediately following it, I thought they were Iranian stooges. But they seem to be evolving into a responsible group "
Its a power thing - once you got power (or are close to it) you dont want to share it with stronger outsiders. Hakim doesnt want Iranian dominance for the same reason he doesnt want US dominance - HE wants to dominate. Kurdish help he can take, since they're too weak to challenge for dominance (they'll only insist on watering down any Islamic character of the state, and some degree of federalism)
That hs is reaching out to Kuwait and Saudi is a sign that he is not in Irans pocket. But if he feels he NEEDS to, he will certainly lean back towards Iran.
|
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-11-13 9:18:24 AM
Top||
|
#1: We can talk to them only with the gun and the sword
I would love to see a sword fight! |
| Posted by: Dragon Fly>Dragon Fly|| 2003-11-13 7:41:27 AM
Top||
|
#2: It's a nice night for a knife fight........
dorf |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 8:47:42 AM
Top||
|
| #3: saudi arabia, the center of the storm. |
| Posted by: Lucky|| 2003-11-13 12:29:13 PM
Top||
|
| #4: Appropriate cartoons here. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama|| 2003-11-13 4:49:22 PM
Top||
|
#1: hundreds of scholars, sheikhs, and interested persons attended the conference...in Sanaa
It is the high season for qat in Yemen!! |
| Posted by: Rafael|| 2003-11-13 12:21:03 AM
Top||
|
| #2: "Interested persons", eh? Wonder what type of folks might fit under that classification? |
| Posted by: tu3031|| 2003-11-13 12:26:01 AM
Top||
|
| #3: sounds like an Islamic Juche conference |
| Posted by: Frank G>Frank G|| 2003-11-13 11:37:21 AM
Top||
|
| #4: An enlightened Arab would make an excellent caliph. All the muslims in the world could rally around this sweet talking natural born leader. Al-Hitar or da-dheeb or, ooh, how bout Al-Rusta. Or bring in Zalloom from paleostan. |
| Posted by: Lucky|| 2003-11-13 12:39:21 PM
Top||
|
| #1: Oops, forgot to remove the BBC scare quotes. I'm sure there's a suitable punchline answer to the question "how many BBC reporters does it take to recognise a leek?"... |
| Posted by: Bulldog>Bulldog|| 2003-11-13 2:09:00 PM
Top||
|
| #2: Souonds like someone needs a little time out. How about 10 years in prison. Do they have a nasty womens prison in UK for ther Bulldog? If not we have one here in California. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)>Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)|| 2003-11-13 2:44:28 PM
Top||
|
| #4: I remember reading history where a US Secretary of State tried to shut down all diplomatic and military decyphering of encrypted diplomatic transmissions because "Gentlemen don't read other gentlemen's mail". Even with the reduced capacity secretly left in place by the Navy, we were surprised at Pearl Harbor. Twits like this who have such high 'moral standards' usually unwittingly perpetuate similar consequences. How many people have to die because of their misplaced moral outrage? Lock her in the lowest dungeon of the Tower of London and turn off the sump pump. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot>Old Patriot||http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]' target='_blank'>[http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]|| 2003-11-13 8:42:02 PM
Top||
|
| #5: Make her move to Iraq and identify thr bodies of all women and chidren in mass graves. Good work for a woman of conscience. |
| Posted by: Super Hose>Super Hose|| 2003-11-13 8:43:11 PM
Top||
|
| #1: Top secret info in an unencrypted email? Not a good idea even if it was addressed correctly... |
| Posted by: PBMcL|| 2003-11-13 10:53:09 AM
Top||
|
#2: Top Secret data doesn't go by e-mail. That's nuts.
Of course, we ARE talking about the UK Parliament, so I guess anything is possible. Incredibly stupid, but possible. |
| Posted by: mojo>mojo|| 2003-11-13 11:13:39 AM
Top||
|
#3: Top Secret data doesn't go by e-mail. That's nuts. Of course, we ARE talking about the UK Parliament, so I guess anything is possible. Incredibly stupid, but possible.
Had they used PGP, they wouldn't have had much reason to worry even if twenty different Ronnie Campbells aside from the intended recipient received the message. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama|| 2003-11-13 1:49:46 PM
Top||
|
#4: This sounds like some kind of smear against MI5, or 6, or whoever handles that kind of thing in the UK.
Or the BOFH forwarded someone's email as a good laugh while having a few pints. |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 2:47:33 PM
Top||
|
| #1: " World War for Oil! " |
| Posted by: Charles>Charles|| 2003-11-13 12:45:09 AM
Top||
|
| #2: World war for FREE oil. |
| Posted by: Leigh|| 2003-11-13 12:58:10 AM
Top||
|
| #3: Here's the almost funny part, our NGS (national geology service) says there isn't much oil to be gained in the Spratly's, yet the Chinese say their own geological service believes theres almost as much oil as Saudi Arabia. Soooo who do we believe hmmm? |
| Posted by: Val|| 2003-11-13 3:01:04 AM
Top||
|
| #4: Technicly, the Phillipines is Chinese territory, if you believe some of them. The "Middle Kingdon" syndrome, which holds, among other things, that China has a historical claim on most of south and east Asia, is not to be ignored. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins>Chuck Simmins||http://blog.simmins.org]' target='_blank'>[http://blog.simmins.org]|| 2003-11-13 8:15:23 AM
Top||
|
#5: The "Middle Kingdon" syndrome, which holds, among other things, that China has a historical claim on most of south and east Asia, is not to be ignored.
The slavering apologists for China who make up most Western historians have mistranslated China's name for itself - zhong guo - literally, it means Middle Kingdom, but the true connotation is closer to Central Empire. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei>Zhang Fei|| 2003-11-13 10:09:13 AM
Top||
|
#6: "show that a Chinese frigate and an ocean research ship were moored at Mischief Reef,"
How appropriate. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-11-13 10:25:52 AM
Top||
|
#7: ...zhong guo - literally, it means Middle Kingdom, but the true connotation is closer to Central Empire.
Is that true, ZF? From my recollections, Britain is Ying guo (brave-guo, IIRC), the USA something-else-guo (beautiful-guo)... Don't all nations' names in Chinese end in guo? |
| Posted by: Bulldog>Bulldog|| 2003-11-13 1:36:33 PM
Top||
|
| #8: OK, Bulldog, I'll bite. What is the Chinese name for Somalia? |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul|| 2003-11-13 4:22:05 PM
Top||
|
| #9: Somalia is just plain "goo". |
| Posted by: Rafael|| 2003-11-13 6:13:50 PM
Top||
|
| #10: I think it's Mae-jaw-phuk-upp-guo. Can't remember the meaning in English. |
| Posted by: Bulldog>Bulldog|| 2003-11-13 7:08:30 PM
Top||
|
| #12: The Chinese aren't in the Spratlys just for the oil. Take a look at a chart, I mean, map. The islands are at a natural choke-point. Fits right in with Chuck's comments. |
| Posted by: Pappy|| 2003-11-13 8:47:50 PM
Top||
|
| #2: Seafarious---LMAO! Thanks. Wonder how the DeGaulle is doing these days. Join the French Navy and see Toulons...always got a kick out of that Rantburg comment! |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul|| 2003-11-13 5:18:04 PM
Top||
|
| #3: Seems like it would've been easier all around if the Frogicrats had stayed out of NATO in the first damn place... |
| Posted by: mojo>mojo|| 2003-11-13 5:41:53 PM
Top||
|
| #4: IIRC, France pulled out of NATO once via DeGaulle. I wouldn't want to have my life dependent upon the whims of the French command. I guess that the French leadership will just sail on until they drop off the edge of the earth on their own accord. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul|| 2003-11-13 5:49:16 PM
Top||
|
| #5: I don't think they can afford the $$$ for this. |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam|| 2003-11-13 5:49:28 PM
Top||
|
| #6: That's rich. They want to play super power, but they've got to use others' hardware to do so. AP is right...this thing was still-born. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi|| 2003-11-13 6:01:06 PM
Top||
|
#7: Caddy Shack.
The CVN Reagan comes to see the yacht club at Brest. |
| Posted by: Shipman|| 2003-11-13 6:13:54 PM
Top||
|
| #8: What are they going to move that 20k troops with? We supply all the airlift capabilities to NATO. Are they going to call Uncle Sam for a lift when they decide to take over the diamond mines in Africa? |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 6:14:59 PM
Top||
|
#9: Smart of French to plan ahead-if you have a plan and others don't,guess who takes charge.
Then,again,it would be interesting to compare French planning for large sortie rate w/Nato warplans and experience Nato had in Bosnia.
Still kind of sad when you think about it.To maintain 600 sorties/day would require commitment of most of Western Europe's Air Forces.The only aerial refuelers are a couple of dozen KC-135s and about same British converted bombers.So the force isn't going to do any loitering waiting for weapons clearance,it isn't going to go too far to bomb anyone,and it has to have prepared airbases-as there are no expeditionary units equiped to refurbish and stock foreign airfields.Without massive spending increases(and I agree with Yosemite Sam)the only targets within reach would have to be in Europe.
To get a 600/day sortie rate would require a massive Euro effort.In that same 24hr. period the US could easily launch over 600 cruise missiles.US carrier based aviation on its own could launch 600 sorties/day for a while.The US has a choice of proven options for attacking a heavily defended dug-in target;Europe has the option of launching a massive raid and risk heavy losses to do so.
Will Europe spend the money to develope the ability to project power outside of its heartland like the US has?I for one am doubtful.
|
| Posted by: Stephen|| 2003-11-13 6:32:45 PM
Top||
|
#10: Of course, France would never use military force without the explicit approval of the United Nations Security Council. And the US Ambassador is gonna hit the "veto" button faster than a Jeopardy contestant.
|
| Posted by: Matt|| 2003-11-13 6:43:22 PM
Top||
|
#11: I thought France participated only in the non-military portions of NATO. I'm a little fuzzy on what the non-military portions of a defense treaty oraganization could be.
|
| Posted by: Super Hose>Super Hose|| 2003-11-13 7:47:05 PM
Top||
|
#12: what the non-military portions of a defense treaty oraganization could be.
Donut Dollies. |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 8:19:58 PM
Top||
|
#13: Hmmm ... re: airlift capacity, isn't there a French / German consortium working on a cargo plane roughly equivalent to the C-130?
Dassault makes rather good jet fighters. It's not out of the realm of possiblity that France + Germany could deploy real airlift capability in a few years, so maneuvering to create support and a command structure to use them isn't a ludicrous move.
The real issue will be getting everyone else to pay the French to make them (& make a profit off of them).
I think they're dead serious about wanting to oppose the US permanently. Whether they will muster the political will and the money is an open question, but if they are trending towards Sharia in the near future, I don't write off that possibility one bit. |
| Posted by: rkb>rkb|| 2003-11-13 9:14:30 PM
Top||
|
#14: Lemme see here, now... The French want to be able to reach the point where they can launch 600 sorties a day.
A US combat wing has approximately 80 combat aircraft, of which 70 or so are expected to be combat-ready at any time. That number closely matches a carrier air group in number. We have some thirty tactical combat wings, and eight to ten DEPLOYED carrier air groups. We routinely practice "surges", which means a maximum number of aircraft in the air for a maximum number of sorties. I remember one exercise at Shaw, involving five wings, that flew 540 combat training sorties in 22 hours, including aerial refueling of every aircraft. During the Vietnam War, carrier aircraft routinely flew two or three missions per day, day after day, for months at a time. The French hope to be able to reach that level in two years.
First, I don't think the French have, or have control of, the 200+ combat aircraft it would take to accomplish what they plan. Their "carrier task force" is a worldwide joke. They have virtually NO air refueling capacity, which means their strike radius is limited to approximately 1000 kilometers - half the maximum range of their Mirage V fighter-bombers (unless they don't plan for them to come home, which would extend their maximum range to almost 2000 kilometers).
There's quite a bit more to sustaining a sortie rate of 600 per day than just getting aircraft airborne. Yes, an AWACS can help, but even that isn't going to be enough. The command and control network (not just an isolated point), the intelligence capability (where those sorties are to be used), and secure communications are just a small portion of what they'll have to develop.
If France wants to build a military capable of confronting the United States, or of usurping NATO roles, it's going to take more than a few more fighters, some command structure, and planning. It' also going to take more than two years to get it all together. I don't think the French economy, or the French attention span, can withstand what it takes to reach that goal. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot>Old Patriot||http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]' target='_blank'>[http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]|| 2003-11-13 9:28:26 PM
Top||
|
| #1: Aw, we don't need those guys. We can start our own club! We can have mapes and secret codes, and that dumb Belgium can't join! Nyah! |
| Posted by: BH>BH|| 2003-11-13 11:21:03 AM
Top||
|
#3: I’m sure there are more than a few european nations that would also have a problem with the Germans getting anywhere near the French nukes. They remember history all too well.
So do I. Germany almost had the Atomic bomb first, but several factors prevented them from attaining it. To think that Germany would get Nuclear Warheads is a frightening thought. |
| Posted by: Charles>Charles|| 2003-11-13 11:48:25 AM
Top||
|
| #4: BH: rest assured that the Belgian poodles will be yapping to join the Bund. |
| Posted by: Steve White>Steve White|| 2003-11-13 11:54:25 AM
Top||
|
#5: Germany has made several tries at having influence / control of nuclear weapons developed by other nations ... France and UK, primarily, but also through NATO of US weapons. (Anybody remember Multilateral Force debates?)
They've also signed the non-proliferation treaty, IIRC, which means this is their only approach to having them, unless they were willing to repudiate that agreement. They haven't given up getting them and will keep trying, I think, while also looking down on countries that openly develop them (c.f. the US). |
| Posted by: rkb>rkb|| 2003-11-13 12:16:47 PM
Top||
|
#6: Anytime someone talks about the Germans having anything to do with nukes, even peripherally, Tom Lehrer's song from the 1960's pops into my head.
MLF [Multilateral Force] Lullaby:
Sleep, baby, sleep, in peace may you slumber,
No danger lurks, your sleep to encumber.
We've got the missiles, peace to determine,
And one of the fingers on the button will be German.
Why shouldn't they have nuclear warheads?
England says no, but they all are soreheads.
I say a bygone should be a bygone,
Let's make peace the way we did in Stanleyville and Saigon.
Once all the Germans were warlike and mean,
But that couldn't happen again.
We taught them a lesson in 1918
And they've hardly bothered us since then.
So, sleep well, my darling, the sandman can linger.
We know our buddies won't give us the finger.
Heil - hail - the Wehrmacht, I mean the Bundeswehr,
Hail to our loyal ally!
M L F
Will scare Brezhnev. [Soviet leader at the time]
I hope he is half as scared as I!
The more things change, the more they remain the same. Too bad the French don't realize that. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut>Barbara Skolaut|| 2003-11-13 12:32:24 PM
Top||
|
#7: Re: german influence over French nukes
Does anyone here really think the Germans would be less responsible than the French? I dont.
Re: whats going on - the EU superstate project has always largely been, for France, a way to harnass German economic might to French political interests. If the EU doesnt function that way, their logical alternative is a bilateral combination - since they dont have the economic strenght on their own to challenge the "hyperpower". OTOH from the German point of view, the EU project was a chance to extend influence and economic ties to the East, without the resistance that an expanion of purely German power eastward would bring. A franco-german combo doesnt accomplish that, and so would seem to have little to offer the Germans.
TGA? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-11-13 12:50:27 PM
Top||
|
| #8: Something smell a little Vichy here. |
| Posted by: Atrus|| 2003-11-13 1:50:17 PM
Top||
|
#9: "I’m sure there are more than a few european nations that would also have a problem with the Germans getting anywhere near the French nukes."
AFAIK, it's only the *British* tabloids that harbour this kind of nationalistic xenophobia towards the Germans. In the rest of the continent, it's evil ideologies that we are primarily scared of, not evil ethnic groups. E.g. remember the reaction about Heider?
"They remember history all too well. "
Oh, better than you do, I wager. They remember what it means to demonize a whole people, for example.
"To think that Germany would get Nuclear Warheads is a frightening thought."
Scarier than Russia and China possessing them? Scarier than Pakistan and India possessing them?
Obsessed about WW2, much?
Do you think that Japan possessing nukes would also be a scary thought? And if not, why? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris>Aris Katsaris|| 2003-11-13 1:54:43 PM
Top||
|
#10: To think that Germany would get Nuclear Warheads is a frightening thought." Scarier than Russia and China possessing them?
Aris you're right..... It wouldn't bother the Russians a bit. They're a mature country which will refuse to demonize the sons of the Teutonic Horde. |
| Posted by: Shipman|| 2003-11-13 2:01:33 PM
Top||
|
#11: In the rest of the continent, it's evil ideologies that we are primarily scared of, not evil ethnic groups.
Really? I suggest you go back and consult a recent poll on who Europeans view as the biggest threats to world peace. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford>Robert Crawford||http://www.kloognome.com]' target='_blank'>[http://www.kloognome.com]|| 2003-11-13 3:00:20 PM
Top||
|
| #12: haha good one Robert (again). |
| Posted by: Rafael|| 2003-11-13 3:06:28 PM
Top||
|
| #13: Robert, you beat me to it! :) The Europeans prove over and over again that they can't help but judge people by ethnicity. To say otherwise is ridiculous as this truth is made abundantly clear through their words, their polls and their actions. |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American|| 2003-11-13 3:21:22 PM
Top||
|
| #15: all I see is the bugs bunny episode (a tree grows in Brooklyn) with the two dogs. One surly bulldog and one mincing suck-up. |
| Posted by: eyeyeye|| 2003-11-13 3:23:13 PM
Top||
|
#16: Robert> If you are referring to Israel, then a couple years back that might very well have been "Bosnia". Or "Yugoslavia" in general. Would that mean European were demonizing the Slavs?
What country's situation causes a greater threat to world peace? Israel is currently in war with the Palestinians, is in danger of war with Syria and Lebanon, and if Saudi Arabia goes Islamic will be in danger of war with that one as well.
That doesn't mean Israel wouldn't be on the *right side* in these wars. It would indeed be on the right, given how much more horrible its opponents and potential opponents are.
But people who don't see the situation of Israel as a risk to world peace are frankly deluding themselves.
Rafael> Easily amused, I see. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris>Aris Katsaris|| 2003-11-13 3:26:42 PM
Top||
|
#17: Actually I'm curious... The Greeks saw the Israelis as the big threat... where did Turkey end up on the list? Wasn't that long ago that yawl were rumbling.
|
| Posted by: Shipman|| 2003-11-13 3:33:56 PM
Top||
|
| #18: Shipman> And when you actually read what I wrote, perhaps you'll be able to answer. Until then drop the non-sequiturs. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris>Aris Katsaris|| 2003-11-13 3:34:07 PM
Top||
|
#19: Shipman> Actually most Greeks saw the Americans as the big threat -- it was all the rest of the Europeans saw Israel.
I doubt many people would see Turkey as a threat to *world* peace, since few people would expect the whole world to go to war defending us.
Threat to us specifically is a different question.
And the poll had a certain list of countries people were asked to choose from -- Turkey wasn't included, I think. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris>Aris Katsaris|| 2003-11-13 3:49:37 PM
Top||
|
| #20: The problem with saying that 'Israel is the biggest threat to world peace' is that it implies that Israel is in the wrong. Putting the lie to your statement Aris. Now if the Euroweenies had said 'the Israeli-Palestine issue is the biggest threat' it would be different. But then again, most here know that the Eurotrash don't think Israel has a right to exist. |
| Posted by: Swiggles|| 2003-11-13 3:58:07 PM
Top||
|
#21: First the nukes... they seem to concern you most. Well, my friends the only ones who should be afraid of Germans possessing nukes are... the nukes! Germany never wanted nukes, a majority doesn't even want nuclear power plants.
Excuse me, what do we need nukes for? To scare the hell out of... Liechtenstein? This is all nonsense and I can't remember a serious discussion with people in Germany wanting to have nukes. Not even the French ones. We'd just try to abolish them.
L'union franco-allemande... well that "dream" sems to be rather confined to the chancellors entourage. Remember he had a French consultant, Brigitte Sauzay (a Mitterand confidente), who died two days ago. There has certainly been a rapprochement due to the joint opposition to the Iraq war, but the French and German systems are still quite incompatible... gaullist centralism versus German federalism. What we share is bureaucracy and a lame economy (we're at least trying to do something about that now).
That said, Germany needs to be integrated firmly into a European Union coming closer together... reading Charles I see that the "old fears" of an independent strong Germany are not likely to go away anytime soon. So if a Europe of 25 states fails (or degenerates into a loose association of states minding their own business), Germany will need to look to alternatives... one could certainly be a "core Europe" (the original European Community minus Italy) plus strengthened ties to Eastern Europe and Russia on the backburner.
The political class in Germany still is very "atlantic" and once we put the current irritations with the U.S. to rest, Germany will probably try to reassume its role as a transatlantic mediator with the U.S. on one side and France (plus Eastern Europe) on the other.
The conservative powers (bound to return very soon) will not jeopardize 50 years of close ties to the United States. Germany remains by large the most "americanized" country of Europe. Not many people speak French here.
As for that "Israel as biggest threat to world peace"... I think that poll was fundamentally flawed. I am rather sure that people were thinking about the Israel-Palestine conflict as the biggest threat, not the state of Israel (or the Jews). And nobody could possibily deny that this conflict IS a threat to world peace. We're not discussing whose fault that is here. |
| Posted by: True German Ally|| 2003-11-13 4:25:38 PM
Top||
|
| #22: Sorry,but every time I see an article on French-German(f before g in English alphabet),I immediately am reminded of Larry Bond's CAULDRON. |
| Posted by: Stephen|| 2003-11-13 5:42:38 PM
Top||
|
#23: True German Ally, I think you are probably right, the Germans would agitate until the French finally got rid of their nukes. They would like to share the Security Council seat (and I don't blame them).
What confuses me is all this talk about what if the Europe of 25 fails. Well then you have a Europe of 20, or 15, or however many get along. That might end up being just Germany France and Benilux. Trying to set up a backup plan (a) sabotages the original plan somewhat by showing no confidence (b) presupposes that the French and whomever the backup plan was made with aren't the cause of the breakup in the first place.
I'm really interested to see how the Central thinking France-first French are going to get along with the rest of Europe. I don't see a whole lot of happy politics going on. |
| Posted by: Yank|| 2003-11-13 5:51:01 PM
Top||
|
#24: And when you actually read what I wrote, perhaps you'll be able to answer. Until then drop the non-sequiturs
Sorry about that Aris, thought you could deduce my thoughts on that. I was wrong.
I doubt many people would see Turkey as a threat to *world* peace, since few people would expect the whole world to go to war defending us
Okay I see your point here. |
| Posted by: Shipman|| 2003-11-13 6:28:31 PM
Top||
|
| #25: Does anyone remember an episode of "Star Trek - The Next Generation" in which was mentioned a nuclear war during the mid-21st century involving something called "the European Hegemony"? |
| Posted by: Jeff|| 2003-11-14 12:15:42 AM
Top||
|
#1: Good morning Fred,
"Greater Turkestan", nobody believes in these kind of utopic theories in central asia believe me, in fact some of the Turkic states have disputes among each other like Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, but an economic zone similar to the EU would be nice. Nowadays the main effort in the Turkic states is the standardising of the language and alphabet in a sort of common Turkish language like the use of common English. Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan have adopted the Latin alphabet already and abandoned the Russian Cyrillic. Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan are working to it. And the language standardising is paying of pretty well, in a personal equation I can say with the Turkish language spoken in Turkey one can understand 90% of the Azerbaijani Turkish, 60% of the Turkmenistan Turkish, 45% of the Uzbekistan Turkish and about 10% of the Kazakh and Kyrgyz Turkish (same for the Uighur Turkish in western China).
|
| Posted by: Murat|| 2003-11-13 2:49:44 AM
Top||
|
#2: Murat, I don't suppose you could tell us what you think about the HEADLINE. All you did was post about two sentences that Fred wrote. Lets not blow 29 words out of context, ok?
I personnaly think this isn't a huge change. Turkey has always known Iran was a threat to them, I believe. It's just that the government there has acknowledged the threat.
Then again, Turkey could be doing this to regain favor with the US. We, as the whole world knows, fear the Mullahs getting Nuclear Arms. Ankara might be using this as a 'second chance' after his government screwed our war plans up in Iraq. The clever thing about this is, while they're supporting the US by declaring Iran a threat, they haven't said they agree with us. Only that they consider Iran a threat. This way they won't alienate the countries Muslim population.
Turkey itself could fall into the ocean, but Ankara is smart enough to build a boat before it does.
|
| Posted by: Charles>Charles|| 2003-11-13 4:25:53 AM
Top||
|
#3: Charles, every army has to focus on priorities, if this priority is defence than one looks at what the theoretical biggest threat could be, in case of Turkey the biggest threat could be the instability in neighbouring countries. The threat definition is very simple, Iran has from Turkey’s neighbours the most powerful army and it is naturally the biggest theoretical threat.
To be short this threat definition has nothing to do with supporting the US or nuclear arms whatsoever. It is merely a zero line for the Turkish army capability requirement, the army must be capable of defeating the main threat. How else could one determine a defense procurement policy if one does not determine the threat and minimum capabilities an army should fullfil to.
|
| Posted by: Murat|| 2003-11-13 6:03:11 AM
Top||
|
| #4: Divide and Conquer. |
| Posted by: B|| 2003-11-13 8:20:37 AM
Top||
|
#5: Murat
Doesn't matter if you believe in them or not. Note that I said the later 21st century, not any time soon. Economic coooperation's the first step, but that will lead to more integration of diverging cultures, with some sort of confederation or even federation further down the road. It's as natural as the affinity between Britain and the U.S., though I'd guess it will end up being more like the affinity of the Scandinavian countries. "Greater Turkestan" has the long-term (not immediate) potential to rival the EU — lots of fertile land, natural resources, an infusion from a foreign culture (the Russers) to stimulate intellectual activity. Judging from the Uzbeks I've met, they even have a sense of humor, or at least some do. Right now they're in the "new nation" mode, and if they go the hereditary president route like the Azeris are trying to do or the cult of personality route like Turkmenbashi's got going they'll remain stuck in the rut. Likewise if they stick too long with the iron fist routine than Karimov leans toward. But I think they'll grow out of it. The greater danger is Islamism, not because I'm anti-Muslim (at least for other than esthetic reasons) but because it suffocates intellectual inquiry.
Iran's opportunities for expansion are much more limited — parts of Afghanistan, perhaps part of Pak Balochistan, a nibble here and there on the Caspian states. Culturally, they've grown to their limits and the people on the other sides of the borders are foreigners, not cousins. |
| Posted by: Fred>Fred|| 2003-11-13 10:21:32 AM
Top||
|
#6: "Culturally, they've grown to their limits and the people on the other sides of the borders are foreigners, not cousins. "
Not necessarily.
Depends on how they play the mix of religion and language, culture, etc.
One of the 2 major languages of Afghanistan, Dari, spoken by almost all non-Pashtun Afghans, is, IIUC virtually a dialect of Parsi. Of course most Dari speakers are Sunnis, not Shia.
also while most central asians speak turkic languages, theres a strong tradition of Persian cultural influence, with Persian as the language of high culture. IIUC the dominant language in Uzbekistan is related to Persian, not Turkish.
There is a persian influence on Urdu, the language of traditional high culture in Pakistan, and a tradition of cultural influence from Persian on Indo-pak muslims going back to the Mogul era.
The Kurds speak a language related to Persian, though theyre Sunnis.
And of course the majority of Iraqis, many gulfies, and a large minority of Saudis are Shia - though they are Arab speakers.
Even look at the Armenian-Azerbaijani situation. Turkey sides with Azer, Russian sides with Armenia - but Iran has sided with the Christian Armenians over the Shia muslim Azeris - why? Armenians speak an Indo-european language distantly related to Persian, while Azeris are Turkic speakers.
IF- VERY big IF - Iran could unite ALL areas of strong Persian cultural influence, AND all nearby areas where their variety of Shia Islam dominate, they could have an empire from Lebanon to Pakistan, from Bahrain to deep in Central Asia.
OTOH if they can dominate ONLY where BOTH persian language is dominant AND Shia Islam is dominant, then they have reached their limits.
My expectation is that while the former is impossible, they can certainly reach beyond the latter.
|
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-11-13 10:38:56 AM
Top||
|
#7: Fred,
Affinity like in the Scandinavian countries and “Greater Turkestan" is a quite different thing Fred. The greatest likelihood would be a Turkey and Azerbaijan merge because they where both part of the Ottoman empire once but even that looks nowadays almost utopia. An economic-political close cooperation even a kind of defence pact is more feasible. The case of Turkmenbashi (the nutcase) and Karimov as you’ve pointed out is a story on itself. I don’t believe there is a danger of (radical) Islamism, not in the Turkic world at least, in Tajikistan (Persian) maybe. |
| Posted by: Murat|| 2003-11-13 11:32:50 AM
Top||
|
#8: IIUC the dominant language in Uzbekistan is related to Persian, not Turkish.
Have you ever spoken with an Uzbek Libby? I have and it is definitely Turkish though strongly influenced by the Russian language.
but Iran has sided with the Christian Armenians over the Shia muslim Azeris - why? Armenians speak an Indo-european language distantly related to Persian, while Azeris are Turkic speakers.
That is not because of relation to persian, but because Iran fears Azerbaijan. The population of Iran is 20% Azeri, a strong Azerbaijan could lead to secession of Southern Azerbaijan that belongs to Iran nowadays. So siding with Armenia is more a matter of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. |
| Posted by: Murat|| 2003-11-13 11:39:39 AM
Top||
|
#9: LH - I think that's Tadjikistan you're thinking of. Uzbek is Turkic.
Iran also has an historical relationship with Armenia as its sometimes suzerain, dating back to Cyrus, if I recall correctly. Habits that old will die hard... |
| Posted by: Fred>Fred|| 2003-11-13 12:49:19 PM
Top||
|
#10: yup, i may be confusing uzbek with Tadjik. though i do seem to recall the notion that Uzbekistan had inherited the cities that historically were centers of Persian culture.
Re Iranian support for Armenia. Well maybe theres a realpolitik component. OTOH it is striking that Russia and Iran and Armenia vs Turkey and Azerbaijan looks like a breakdown on linguistic lines. Certainly much more than a breakdown on religious lines a la Huntington. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-11-13 1:04:27 PM
Top||
|
| #11: Check out this map - http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_peoples_82.jpg - of ethnic groups in the middle east. There is a very large area either side of the IRAN/Turkey border where Persians/Turks are a small minority in the respective countries. As long as ethnic groups have national aspirations, this will be an area of instability. |
| Posted by: Phil_B|| 2003-11-13 3:01:14 PM
Top||
|
#12: That is not because of relation to persian, but because Iran fears Azerbaijan. The population of Iran is 20% Azeri, a strong Azerbaijan could lead to secession of Southern Azerbaijan that belongs to Iran nowadays. So siding with Armenia is more a matter of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Iran fears Azerbaijan? Long term maybe, but I doubt Aliev's fiefdom gives the akhunds sleepless nights at the moment. AFAIK Azerbaijan's attempts to whip up secessionist sentiment in the Azeri parts of Iran flopped completely, the Azeri army were thrashed by the Armenians in the Nagorny-Karabakh war (well if the Armenians can beat them...) & while Azerbaijan is ruled by the pretty unpopular playboy son of a former KGB officer/Brezhevite courtier politburu member (courtesy of some rigged elections) I'd guess young Aliev will be more concerned with squishing his (many) internal enemies than with picking fights with much larger & more powerful countries. |
| Posted by: Dave|| 2003-11-13 6:26:39 PM
Top||
|
| #1: Yeah, Chomsky. But I heard he had some artistic talent. |
| Posted by: BH>BH|| 2003-11-13 2:55:13 PM
Top||
|
| #2: Who? Chomsky? I find him mainly incoherent. |
| Posted by: eLarson|| 2003-11-13 8:50:33 PM
Top||
|
| #3: a linguist? artistic talent? In medieval times they were the court jesters... |
| Posted by: Frank G>Frank G|| 2003-11-13 11:22:05 PM
Top||
|
| #1: Will Gory Vidalater kindly take his head out of his ass or else shut the fuck up? |
| Posted by: Atrus|| 2003-11-13 2:05:23 PM
Top||
|
#2: "Whoever raises the most money to buy TV time will probably be the next president...."
All-right!!!! |
| Posted by: Matt|| 2003-11-13 2:12:48 PM
Top||
|
#4: Why isn't Gore in one of the labor-corrective concentration camps that Mr. Ashcroft set up in Idaho?
Oh right, there aren't any. |
| Posted by: Steve White>Steve White|| 2003-11-13 2:33:07 PM
Top||
|
#5: "Well, nobody has ever wrecked the Bill of Rights as he has."
-Yeah, I feel my civil rights have been just so violated against.......Tell the lie often enough it becomes truth. Maybe some foreign immigrants who are not formal citizens have been talked to but I know of not one American cititzen who has had their rights trampled on by the "evil Bush". I know someone will probably try to tell me: "oh yeah dude, I know a guy who knows a guy whose brother's girlfriend's aunt was thrown in jail for saying Bush sucks, - I swear bro." So it goes. |
| Posted by: Jarhead|| 2003-11-13 2:33:21 PM
Top||
|
#6: Well, nobody has ever wrecked the Bill of Rights as he has.
For heavens sake... he's just published a book on the first years of the country, and isn't even aware of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 (signed into law by John Adams). If the Sedition Act were still in effect, Vidal would have been in trouble, for it made it a crime to utter or publish anything with the intent of defaming the government, Congress, or the President. The penalty was two years in jale and/or a $2000 fine. (link: The Avalon Project, Yale Law School) |
| Posted by: snellenr>snellenr|| 2003-11-13 2:52:46 PM
Top||
|
#7: Saladin was a victorious commander primarily due to the ineptness of his opponents. Europeans insisted in trying to fight a European campaign in Middle Eastern geography. He, however, could be beaten, or forced into a treaty.
BIOGRAPHY
1138: Born in Tikrit in Iraq as son of the Kurdish chief Ayyub.
1152: Starts to work in the service of the Syrian ruler, Nureddin.
1164: He starts to show his military and strategical qualities under 3 campaigns against the Crusaders who were established in Palestine, with the first campaign this year.
1169: Saladin serves as second to the commander in chief of the Syrian army, his uncle Shirkuh. Shirkuh became vizier of Egypt, but died after only 2 months. Saladin then took over as vizier. Despite the nominal limitations to the vizier position, Saladin took little regard to the interests of his superiors, the Fatimid rulers. He turned Cairo into an Ayyubid power base, where he used Kurds in leading positions.
1171: Saladin suppresses the Fatimid rulers of Egypt in 1171, whereupon he unites Egypt with the Abbasid Caliphate. But was not as eager as Nureddin to go to war against the Crusaders, and relations between him and Nureddin became very difficult.
1174: Nureddin dies, and Saladin uses the opportunity to extend his power base.
— Conquers Damascus.
1175: The Syrian Assassin leader Rashideddin's men made two attempts on the life of Saladin, the leader of the Ayyubids. The second time, the Assassin came so close that wounds were infliceted upon Saladin.
1176: Saladin besieges the fortress of Masyaf, the stronghold of Rashideddin. After some weeks, Saladin suddenly withdraws, and leaves the Assassins in peace for the rest of his life. It is believed that he was exposed to a threat of having his entire family murdered.
1183: Conquers the important north-Syrian city of Aleppo.
1186: Conquers Mosul in northern Iraq.
1187: With his new strength he attacks the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, and after 3 months of fighting he gets control over the city.
1189: A third Crusade manages to enlarge the coastal area of Palestine, while Jerusalem remains under Saladin's control.
1192: With The Peace of Ramla armistice agreement with King Richard 1 of England, the whole coast was defined as Christian land, while the city of Jerusalem remained under Muslim control.
1193 March 4: Dies in Damascus after a short illness.
|
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins>Chuck Simmins||http://blog.simmins.org]' target='_blank'>[http://blog.simmins.org]|| 2003-11-13 4:35:14 PM
Top||
|
| #8: that's it--vidal has sucked so much cock that the smegma in his brain has finally ossified |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 10:37:26 PM
Top||
|
#2: So ummm.... when will they interview the families of the victims of the boomers. You know the innocent civilians who were only trying to take a bus or enjoy an evening out.
At least they weren't a certified darwin contender stupid enough to stand in front of a D9 where the driver couldn't even SEE them.... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool>CrazyFool|| 2003-11-13 12:21:04 PM
Top||
|
| #3: Gosh. I'd love to come, but I have to wash my hair... |
| Posted by: Fred>Fred|| 2003-11-13 12:56:04 PM
Top||
|
#4: Since her death, Rachel’s parents, Craig and Cindy Corrie, have been in the public spotlight. They will be in Atlanta on Thursday.
Losers. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama|| 2003-11-13 1:57:02 PM
Top||
|
| #5: I wouldn't go. The discussion is probably going to be very 2 dimensional anyway |
| Posted by: Mike>Mike|| 2003-11-13 1:57:45 PM
Top||
|
#6: Mike do you fear the speeches will be flat?
|
| Posted by: Shipman|| 2003-11-13 2:04:19 PM
Top||
|
| #7: I can't make it; I have a computer game to play. For the next best thing I'll visit an IHoP. |
| Posted by: Atrus|| 2003-11-13 2:18:04 PM
Top||
|
| #10: Hell, if these twits could get another daughter killed in terrorist-support action, there'd probably be a movie deal in it for 'em... |
| Posted by: mojo>mojo|| 2003-11-13 4:40:14 PM
Top||
|
| #11: i got two words for these numnuts--beep beep |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 10:44:25 PM
Top||
|
| #1: Absolutely unbelievable. Another example of the ignorance that leads the NAACP. |
| Posted by: cruxfaith|| 2003-11-13 8:27:11 AM
Top||
|
| #2: What's suprising about this statement? If you are black and haven't sold your soal to the NAACP and their bosses in the Democratic party, you're concidered a "Uncle Tom". They feel the same way about Justice Thomas. |
| Posted by: Steve>Steve|| 2003-11-13 8:29:23 AM
Top||
|
| #4: If Julian Bond and Aaron MacGruder are against Condi, that is the best argument yet for making her our next vice president. |
| Posted by: Mike>Mike|| 2003-11-13 9:24:22 AM
Top||
|
| #5: thas right, my brothers. the democrats run a fahn plantation. y'all best not try to run off! |
| Posted by: j-will|| 2003-11-13 11:43:07 AM
Top||
|
| #6: Julian Bond is a crackpot of the highest order. McGruder isn't a cartoonist, he is a cartoon. Black America must be so proud. |
| Posted by: remote man|| 2003-11-13 12:22:31 PM
Top||
|
#7: This is the kind of story that needs to get blasted out there. Of course, the Politburo Major News Networks aren't touching this one. I hope the panel on Hume's show don't let J. Williams get away with this. These kinds of whackos need to be marginalized as bad as the islamofascists do. Preferably with the same method. |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 1:23:47 PM
Top||
|
| #8: At some point the NAACP should lose their tax exempt status for such blatant failures to maintain their non-partisanship. Yeah it would create a shitstorm but it really should be done. |
| Posted by: Yank|| 2003-11-13 3:12:53 PM
Top||
|
#9: I'd support Condi for VP... She has balls of steel.
Unlike the other people mentioned in this artice. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool>CrazyFool|| 2003-11-13 3:13:05 PM
Top||
|
#10: Damn Yankee Crackers you don't understand
Bond, Julian Bond
0074
AKA Sellout
AKA An African-American who's done the job.
AKA A leading spokesman for Black America.
AKA An up and coming spokesman for Black America.
AKA A thinking American.
|
| Posted by: Shipman|| 2003-11-13 7:43:47 PM
Top||
|
#11: Damn Yankee Crackers you don't understand Bond, Julian Bond 0074 AKA Sellout AKA An African-American who's done the job. AKA A leading spokesman for Black America. AKA An up and coming spokesman for Black America. AKA A thinking American.
I nominate this "fine upstanding merkin" to be our next ambassadore to Zim-bab-way.
On a one-way ticket...
He'd be a perfect fit with Bobby-boy. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot>Old Patriot||http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]' target='_blank'>[http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]|| 2003-11-13 10:01:16 PM
Top||
|
#1: I'm glad this was worked out, but the bottom line is that she shouldn't be in the service if it interferes with raising her/his kids. It is NOT an 8-5 job with weekends and holidays off, with good health benefits. She knew when she signed her enlistment contract that part of the deal is you are willing to be deployed. She signed it and she banked the checks. She just ended up making everyone do a shitload of paperwork, when the Army could have easily have booted her out, instead of doing the scutwork and doing it right.
Basically it's her and her husband's fault. If you can't deploy, don't enlist. End of story. |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 3:17:01 PM
Top||
|
| #2: Damn Straight! She cashed those guard checks every month and now that she is needed she can't deploy? I understand her situation but she should have resigned from the reserves long ago. Anyone want to bet they rewrite the rules for spouses in the military? |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)>Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)|| 2003-11-13 3:47:49 PM
Top||
|
#3: If you can't deploy, don't enlist. End of story.
The military has rules regading this sort of situation - enlistees are required to arrange child care in advance. The problem here is that some sort of dispute arose between Sgt. Holcomb's mother and ex-wife (who were caring for the kids in their absence) and it ended up in the court system.
She cashed those guard checks every month and now that she is needed she can't deploy?
She already did deploy to Iraq. Both husband and wife had to take emergency leave to try to sort this whole mess out.
I forgot where I read this, but apparently someone higher up in the chain of command is possibly looking to discharge Sgt. Holcomb's wife for parental reasons. No mention was made if it would be honorable or not. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama|| 2003-11-13 4:06:08 PM
Top||
|
#4: Perhaps that is something we should consider, given our manpower shortage.
A secondary, 8 to 5, Monday through Friday, military reserve. That in ADDITION to the normal reserves. We'd pick up any number of useful people, even former military personell, who aren't serving because they have their hands full of family and can't do the 24/7 thing anymore.
Just a thought.
Ed Becerra.
|
| Posted by: Ed Becerra|| 2003-11-13 4:08:48 PM
Top||
|
#5: I am local to this.
What happened is the Ex-Wife caused all this trouble, and some damn fool judge in Family Court allowed her too.
The childcare plan was set, and was fine, passed all the regs for both of them and the Army. But once they both got overseas, the EX-WIFE judge shopped, and got a judge to declae, in their absence that one of the two HAD to be there or they woudl lose custody to his 2 children form the former marriage.
This was a cold blooded power play by the ex-wife. The ex knew that either he had to screw his career up, or his new wife would have to screw up her time with the Guard, or else she could steal sole custody.
This whole thing was set up by the ex-wofe to cause as much pain to her former husband and new wife as possible.
The Civilian Judge should be ashamed for going along with this, and putting in a court order forcing one of the two to remain home or lose custody.
|
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 4:36:57 PM
Top||
|
| #6: They both deployed that indicates a willingness to serve to me. On the Yellowstone I had 23 women working for me - one of them was a QM3 who was serving on her second ship. She never deployed and never intended to. Here husband could have taken care of her daughter during deployments but she weasled out just before deploying on a Med cruise. She left the team short. Luckily, we had crossed trained several others QM's for plotting duty during Navigation Detail. Used to really gripe me that she drew active duty pay but never intended to serve. |
| Posted by: Super Hose>Super Hose|| 2003-11-13 8:05:47 PM
Top||
|
#7: Perhaps that is something we should consider, given our manpower shortage. A secondary, 8 to 5, Monday through Friday, military reserve.
I'm not sure about the "Monday through Friday, 8 to 5" bit, but I agree, we need a back-up plan - something we don't have now.
Originally, the Guard and Reserve WERE the backup plan. Unfortunately, the HUGE drawdown of military forces after the collapse of the Soviet Union was way too deep, too soon. We knew even then that there were other enemies to face, and our military was stretched dangerously thin. Today, we use the Reserves and Guard the same way generals in World War II used their combat reserves. At the moment, the Guard and Reserves are as over-stretched as the active force. Unfortunately, that leaves us with no back-up at all.
The Brits used mustered-out, wounded, and overage military and former military to fill home base positions, while the young, active duty warriors went off to BE warriors. We're a huge nation, with nearly 300 million people. There are more than eight million Vietnam era vets we could draw on to take care of stateside duties while we fought in Iraq. Many of us volunteered. Many more probably would.
Perhaps what we need is a back-up force consisting of former and retired military, volunteers, and family members, who can do the routine, day-to-day things that need to be done, but don't require an active military soldier to do them. Perhaps they could be organized to support specific units, or a specific base, or a specific command. Someone yesterday mentioned Heinlein's "Starship Troopers". Heinlein's philosophy in that book was "Everyone works, everyone plays, everyone fights". Maybe that's how we need to re-shape our military.
The War on Terror may well last fifty years. We need to start thinking in those terms. We may be lucky, and it won't last that long, but we need to plan as if it might. That should have started the day after 9/11. We may be getting the ball rolling late, but better late than never. Incidents like this may be the catalyst to begin those changes. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot>Old Patriot||http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]' target='_blank'>[http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]|| 2003-11-13 10:17:12 PM
Top||
|
#8: There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of 20-30 something vets who would gladly go back on active duty. Hell, if they didn't want to send me back to basic, I'd reup tomorrow. But I think OP is right, there are plenty of vets who would join up as 'Home Guard' troops, filling admin and training billets in CONUS.
I'd still rather ruck up and go do what I could to help out with the 10th mtn. |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 11:21:23 PM
Top||
|
#1: I'm terribly ambivelant about this. Part of me says all practicing muslims in the military should be on orders to Greenland or the South Pole. The other part of me says send them through airborne school without a parachute.
Decisions, decisions. |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 1:27:38 PM
Top||
|
#2: You're wrong, Anonymous:
Muslim Defends U.S., Land He Loves
It took 14 surgeries, one of them lasting 11 hours, to repair the damage done to Sgt. Wasim Khan's right leg when a rocket-propelled grenade tore into his ammunition truck during a June battle in Iraq. Then there were two more surgeries to repair an eye. Khan, 27, still has marks on his arms and other parts of his body hit by shrapnel. But the worst damage was to his leg, where, Khan says, "It looked as though someone had spooned out a big chunk of it."
Yesterday, Khan, who is a practicing Muslim and who prays five times a day on a small rug in the Richmond Hill apartment he shares with his cousin, Mohammed Nasim, stretched out on a couch, his wounded leg propped on a plump pillow.
He showed me pictures taken at the hospital, including one with President George W. Bush and Bush's wife, Laura. "They were great," said Khan, who was born in Pakistan and arrived in America in 1997. "The president sat on my bed and shook hands with me and thanked me for fighting for the country and then he called me 'my fellow American.'" Khan has been in the Army for more than five years and still has two more years to go. He talks about signing on for another stint because he loves being in the Army and especially with the First Armored Division soldiers who were his tent mates. And he is proud now to be an American citizen, taking the oath at a ceremony in the hospital. "If you choose to live in a country, then you are obligated to defend it," he said. |
| Posted by: Steve>Steve|| 2003-11-13 2:03:44 PM
Top||
|
#3: Customs agents found 132 compact discs in his luggage, including one that contained hundreds of classified documents labeled "SECRET."
They used to execute traitors like this |
| Posted by: Mike>Mike|| 2003-11-13 2:09:36 PM
Top||
|
#4: "If you choose to live in a country, then you are obligated to defend it," he said. (from Steve's post)
How true this is. Unfortunately I personally know that many people who come to live here would not lift a finger to defend this country (Canada, US, take your pick). The ultimate test of citizenship, we may yet get a chance to use it. |
| Posted by: Rafael|| 2003-11-13 3:17:08 PM
Top||
|
| #3: Hooper's cries of victimization and profiling get harder to stomache with each arrest fitting his profile. Bastards should be doing a little more:"why do they hate us"? introspection. I think it will take only one more Islamic-inspired terror attack on US soil and they will be wondering what the f*&k hit them - the american people are very forgiving, but tolerance only goes so far |
| Posted by: Frank G>Frank G|| 2003-11-13 11:47:30 AM
Top||
|
| #4: I thought a lot of the leaders were having 'substansive' talks with the FBI? Aren't they part of the Bush 'regime'. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge>Cyber Sarge|| 2003-11-13 10:38:51 PM
Top||
|
| #2: So, do these misanthropes think that they will be unable to control their natural prediliction for rape, or are they just suffering from incredible teeny-weenie syndrome? Or possibly a little bit of both? |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 1:49:08 PM
Top||
|
| #3: I think it's teeny-weeny wiener, myself, and they're afraid the rest of the world will find out and laugh at them. |
| Posted by: Fred>Fred|| 2003-11-13 4:29:20 PM
Top||
|
| #1: I wonder what Judge Judy would make of this. |
| Posted by: Rafael|| 2003-11-13 12:25:18 AM
Top||
|
#2: the police registered a case against the accused on the complaint of her father.
At least her father cared to file a case. I would have thought he would just ignore the murder. |
| Posted by: Charles>Charles|| 2003-11-13 12:47:29 AM
Top||
|
#3: "stabbed her to death...and fled"
Why did they flee? If it was an "honor" killing, they should have stayed at the murder scene, basking in all the "honor".
These murderers are ignorant animals, and should be exterminated so they don't spread their disease. |
| Posted by: Uncle Joe|| 2003-11-13 1:03:47 AM
Top||
|
#1: "All I said was Mohammed"
"Blasphemer! You're only making it worse for yourself"
"Making it worse?!? How could it be worse? Mohammed, Mohammed, Mohammed!" |
| Posted by: BH>BH|| 2003-11-13 11:11:44 AM
Top||
|
| #2: "Death by banana split!" |
| Posted by: Dar>Dar|| 2003-11-13 3:34:20 PM
Top||
|
| #3: So, does Niaz have to pay the Rs50,000 fine BEFORE or AFTER he is executed? Or is that up to the district attorney? |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul|| 2003-11-13 7:14:30 PM
Top||
|
| #1: Much of the surprise was foiled, so their fantasy of another 911 bomb rocking the world and resulting in the overthrow of SA ended like a wet firecracker. Rather than shock and awe at their "brilliant military strategy", their impotence was laid bare for the Arab world to see. I think they are too embarassed to admit that their Mighty Army of God(TM) can do little more than pull off car bombs and blow up suicide bombers....any angry loser with funding can do that. |
| Posted by: B|| 2003-11-13 7:47:15 AM
Top||
|
| #1: Must of been a hell of a firecracker! |
| Posted by: Raptor>Raptor|| 2003-11-13 7:18:59 AM
Top||
|
#2: Norks only left because they were playing on artificial turf.
|
| Posted by: Shipman|| 2003-11-13 7:37:06 AM
Top||
|
| #3: I don't think the Norks would've left if the crowd had simply tossed tomatos and eggs (or processed plutonium). |
| Posted by: Tokyo Taro|| 2003-11-13 7:53:43 AM
Top||
|
| #4: Were they playing for the Axis of Evil Cup? |
| Posted by: Tibor|| 2003-11-13 10:06:06 AM
Top||
|
| #5: Right! We'll turn your country into a sea of fire for that! |
| Posted by: BH>BH|| 2003-11-13 11:15:35 AM
Top||
|
| #1: This guy is for real! He tortured his guards with REPEATED renditions of ‘The Red, White, and Blue’ by Toby Keith. Shoshauna Johnson opined that “He can’t sing” but I bet she liked hearing it just the same. Too bad he didn’t get a CIB for his efforts and some other accouterments. For non-military types: Service men can not receive cash or monetary rewards so medals are all he can get. It wouldn’t be wrong to accelerate a promotion or two this young man. I am sure he would make a fine NCO or Warrant officer. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)>Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)|| 2003-11-13 4:40:02 PM
Top||
|
#2: Funny how PFC Lynch got all the press, and Miller didnt even get a promotion (He's still wiating on the list for SGT from SP$). This guy should have been meritoriously promoted at a minimum. A bronze Start with a V device is all that he got. He deserves higher.
FYI: He was firing in single shot mode- his M16 jammed and woudlnt feed after each shot, so he, unde fire, manually fed each round into the 16, fired, cleared and repeated the process. All while bascially alone and outnumbered.
Whats the matter with the press, I guess its that Miller used a big mean GUN to KILL BAD GUYS. And he wasn't remorseful.
And you know the press cannot condone gun use, killing or the death of bad guys.
And the press cannot afford a HERO to get the press. They have to trot out a female then twist her words against the Bush administration.
This guy had brass ones. They should put him in the press - he deserves it far more than Jessica "Car Wreck" Lynch. |
| Posted by: OldDogSoldier|| 2003-11-13 5:01:24 PM
Top||
|
| #3: I'd be better inclined to buy a book he would write. Shall we hold our breath, waiting for someone to offer him a nice contract and advance? |
| Posted by: Sgt. Mom||www.sgtstryker.com]' target='_blank'>[www.sgtstryker.com]|| 2003-11-13 5:59:37 PM
Top||
|
| #4: I tell ya what I'd like to see: a compendium of stories about soldiers like Pfc. Miller, the Canadian snipers, the Polish commandos, the battle of "Larry, Curly, and Moe" -- well-researched and based on interviews with the personnel involved. A modern "Profiles in Courage..." |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 6:18:57 PM
Top||
|
| #5: Anon, we don't have that yet as far as I know but you can read The March Up by Bing West and Ray "E-tool" Smith about the Marine assault up to and in to Baghdad. A seriously good book. |
| Posted by: Matt|| 2003-11-13 6:47:28 PM
Top||
|
#6: That didn't qualify for a CIB? What's required?
Hell, he was acting Combat Infantry.
|
| Posted by: Shipman|| 2003-11-13 7:46:43 PM
Top||
|
| #7: I had never even heard of this Miller guy (and, my hat's off to him - SLA Marshall would have been proud), but putting this story up against the fabrications that were circulated by US government about the "Lynch story", the whole thing starts looking a lot like the movie "Wag the Dog". In case anyone's not seen that movie (which should probably be mandatory global viewing right about now) its about a Presidency in scandal that fabricates an incident to create a "war" against Albania - using slick media effects to make their case. |
| Posted by: Lone Ranger>Lone Ranger|| 2003-11-13 7:49:48 PM
Top||
|
| #8: Somebdoy check me on this but I think that only 11-Bravos get a CIB? |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge>Cyber Sarge|| 2003-11-13 10:36:35 PM
Top||
|
| #9: this guy's problem is that he looks like a fast-food guy at Jack-In-The-Box. Appearances are deceiving - he's got some stones, and deserves better than he's gotten, IMHO. As do more than we know of, I'm sure. |
| Posted by: Frank G>Frank G|| 2003-11-13 11:14:50 PM
Top||
|
| #10: Cyber Sarge, he should rate the CIB despite non infantry MOS. If he was a Marine he'd rate the Combat Action Ribbon (CAR) our CIB equivalent. My hat's off to this guy, sadly, 'baby Jessica's' getting all the attention. I'm w/ODS on this one, she was a survivor and admits it. She was no hero, the media pushed it, maybe the high-up suck-dicks at the pentagon gave the story life as well, hard to say. I know if they do a movie on Miller I'd watch that before baby Jesse. |
| Posted by: Jarhead|| 2003-11-13 11:20:11 PM
Top||
|
#1: Italian troops were also on hand in Mogadishu in 1993. There were allegations that they cooperated with the various Somali militias, alerting them to American and other UN ops, but little evidence for this has surfaced.
What we do know is that it was an Italian force that went to the rescue of ambushed Pakistani troops on June 24, 1993. This was the incident that precipitated the attempt to capture Mohammed Aidad and, eventually, the famous Blackhawk Down battle of October 3.
33 Pakistanis were killed (not 24, as widely reported, 9 bodies were never recovered).
Word of what the relief force found and saw, the all but unspeakable butchery the mobs and their Al Qaeda allies inflicted on the Pakistani dead (some of whom, unfortunately, were probably still alive when it started), spread throughout the Italian forces, including the Carabinieri.
Every Italian soldier I have spoken to in recent years (a fair number) is aware of this and it significantly colors their view of Islamic guerrillas and terrorists.
The Italian military is with us in this struggle and so is Berlusconi.
The large idiotarian and LLL element in Italy will wail and moan and regurgitate the rhetoric of their masters in the French and American Left, but it cannot change the resolve and clarity of thought that I see among the real people of Italy.
Remember, too, that Oriana Fallaci is an Italian, and she is worth several campuses full of jihadi tools anytime. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy|| 2003-11-13 8:07:53 PM
Top||
|
#2: AC,
Thank you, I had heard the rumor that the Italians notified the Somali militia each time the choppers took off in Mogadishu, because they thought we were being too heavy handed. I took it as gospel. I was deployed somewhere and didn't understand why we cut and ran after being bloodied. I had held the Italians complicit until this day. |
| Posted by: Super Hose>Super Hose|| 2003-11-13 8:20:15 PM
Top||
|
#3: You're welcome, Super Hose.
Interestingly, one Italian account I read of the June 24 incident cited the "enormous deterrent value of M-60 tanks" (which the Italians in Mog had) as a crucial factor in the rescue of the surviving Pakistanis.
This was before US SecDef Aspin and President Clinton refused the local American commander's request for a small armored force, apparently on the grounds that it would look bad on TV. Most accounts indicate that the presence of a single platoon of M-1s and accompanying Bradleys could have made all the difference in the world on October 3. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy|| 2003-11-13 9:30:53 PM
Top||
|
#1: In total the 82 AB "All-American" soldiers killed six aggressors and wounded four. The four wounded were evacuated for medical treatment.
Shoulda wasted all ten of them, and saved the medical supplies for more worthy patients. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama|| 2003-11-13 3:02:59 PM
Top||
|
| #1: Take THAT, Murat! |
| Posted by: Atrus|| 2003-11-13 2:11:32 PM
Top||
|
| #2: "Named Area of Interest"=rat trap |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy|| 2003-11-13 2:14:18 PM
Top||
|
| #3: NAI = No Abhorrent Islamists |
| Posted by: Steve>Steve|| 2003-11-13 2:40:35 PM
Top||
|
#4: "An American artillery unit fired 12 rounds of 155mm howitzers against an insurgent mortar team that had fired off a few shots in the direction of the "green zone," where the central Coalition military and civilian authority compound is located in Baghdad."
Counter-battery radar's a bitch, ain't it fellas? |
| Posted by: mojo>mojo|| 2003-11-13 2:43:00 PM
Top||
|
| #5: NAI = Killing field |
| Posted by: Mercutio|| 2003-11-13 2:45:59 PM
Top||
|
| #6: NAI = About to get blown the f*ck up. |
| Posted by: Jarhead|| 2003-11-13 2:51:30 PM
Top||
|
#7: NAI,NAI,NAI,NAI,NAI,NAI,NAI, NAI hee hee good-bye.
|
| Posted by: Shipman|| 2003-11-13 3:41:29 PM
Top||
|
| #8: No Animate Islamists. |
| Posted by: Shipman|| 2003-11-13 3:42:55 PM
Top||
|
| #9: NAI=Bullseye |
| Posted by: Pete Stanley|| 2003-11-13 3:45:19 PM
Top||
|
| #10: NAI=numerous asshats inside |
| Posted by: Kirk|| 2003-11-13 5:10:42 PM
Top||
|
| #11: Neutralizing Assclown Insurgents |
| Posted by: Jarhead|| 2003-11-13 9:38:36 PM
Top||
|
| #1: Jihad Express. One-way tickets, our specialty. |
| Posted by: Steve>Steve|| 2003-11-13 1:50:35 PM
Top||
|
#2: Rail lines are useful for shipping supplies to an advancing army.
Just thought I'd point that out. |
| Posted by: Mike>Mike|| 2003-11-13 1:54:51 PM
Top||
|
| #3: Genus: Hobos Fundos |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi|| 2003-11-13 1:55:40 PM
Top||
|
#4: economic reconstruction in Iraq takes priority over sanctioning Syria.
If anyones worried about folks sneaking across the border in rail cars, can I suggest the CPA hire some ex-Southern Pacific or ex-Santa Fe railroad police? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-11-13 3:20:19 PM
Top||
|
| #5: Wanna bet on heavy-duty searches just inside the Iraqi border? |
| Posted by: mojo>mojo|| 2003-11-13 4:36:06 PM
Top||
|
#6: Time to break out the Centenials and show the locals a real choo-choo. Besides they can afford the fuel.
|
| Posted by: Shipman|| 2003-11-13 7:49:29 PM
Top||
|
| #7: Commerce is important. I would get the Syrian merchants dependent on this trade line. The idea is to export free trade and democracy to the neighborhood. |
| Posted by: Super Hose>Super Hose|| 2003-11-13 8:51:19 PM
Top||
|
| #8: The American Press is doing a damned lousy job of keeping the American people informed. It seems that rail links to Syria are open, pipelines are pumping oil to Turkey, and the refineries are finally operating in Basra. What other good news are they sitting on and not talking about? Why haven't we heard anything about Umm Qasr? That was the first major area captured: certainly the port there should be open by now. Is it? I haven't heard. There was also a rail line from Umm Qasr to Basra that was supposed to be running, but since the original blurb (while there were still embedded reporters, IIRC), nothing. Zayed gives us glimpses of what's going on in part of Baghdad, but what else is happening? We heard that commercial flights had been started to Basra - are they continuing? The entire US news "industry" has no problem manufacturing anti-American pieces, but where are the accurate, timely, and important discussions of what's actually happening in the country itself? I'm sure it's not just this old intel puke that wants to know, but a large number of Americans and Iraqis that are tired of being in the dark. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot>Old Patriot||http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]' target='_blank'>[http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]|| 2003-11-13 11:54:46 PM
Top||
|
| #1: Elections first, election rules later. Sounds like the Florida 2000 model to me. |
| Posted by: Slumming|| 2003-11-13 1:19:41 PM
Top||
|
#2: How many Frog politicians does it take to change a light bulb?
Well, first you have to have a meeting to decide the shape of the table... |
| Posted by: mojo>mojo|| 2003-11-13 5:46:52 PM
Top||
|
| #3: I think Bremer's trip to the White House was to confim that the current council is incapable of ordering lunch yet alone drafting a constitution this century. Thus the express line for their replacements. |
| Posted by: Super Hose>Super Hose|| 2003-11-13 8:55:09 PM
Top||
|
#4: This could be a good idea. First, the Iraqis have little experience with representative government. Give them the chance to elect people to local groups. Then let them elect people to regional groups. Follow that with getting them to elect people to a constitutional congress. Then get them to vote on a constitution. By then, they'll have the idea about voting for a national government, and for people to represent them in that national government.
It'll also put the pressure on the current interim government to get their act in gear. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot>Old Patriot||http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]' target='_blank'>[http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]|| 2003-11-13 10:43:26 PM
Top||
|
| #1: Bullshit, Murat. |
| Posted by: mojo>mojo|| 2003-11-13 10:44:00 AM
Top||
|
| #2: The spin on this is simply unbelievable. Contrary to what the Daily Error is reporting, Operation Iron Hammer is proceeding apace, and the bad guys are getting hammered. |
| Posted by: Mike>Mike|| 2003-11-13 10:45:41 AM
Top||
|
#3: "A CIA report warned that Iraqis increasingly believe the allies can be defeated by guerrillas, believed to number up to 50,000. A source said: "It says we are going to lose the situation unless there is a rapid and dramatic change of course"
the first sentence seems to be an accurate report of what the CIA has said. The number of 50,000 though has not been mentioned in articles on the CIA report Ive seen. And the last sentence is from a totally different source, apparently, not connected with the report.
an important report, but this is spin. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-11-13 10:52:42 AM
Top||
|
| #4: Is al-Mirror trying to prove that everything's random here? |
| Posted by: Atrus|| 2003-11-13 11:09:25 AM
Top||
|
| #5: Murat - post something that is accurate - the us will be there for years (in some form). now just get over it - dumbass |
| Posted by: Dan|| 2003-11-13 11:09:40 AM
Top||
|
| #6: Murat I applaud your ability to look over ALL other indicators and find the one that supports your logic. The insurgents may have numbered 50k at one time. That is if you include all the ex-Iraqi types that live in the Sunni triangle. That number has probably dropped since a lot of them were killed during the invasion and will be killed over the next few weeks. Unless we (U.S.) get stupid and elect Sharpton, you can expect the U.S. to continue to garrison Iraq for at least the next four years. Only Islamists and French run from battle, NOT the U.S. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)>Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)|| 2003-11-13 11:31:07 AM
Top||
|
| #7: This is so obviously false. |
| Posted by: Charles>Charles|| 2003-11-13 11:33:50 AM
Top||
|
#8: Thats the left for you, always loud in their criticism of freedom and liberty, always quiet in their protest of tyranny. The left cant wait to lose in Iraq. It will prove their point that there is nothing worth fighting and dying for, and thus their shame of standing aside and doing nothing while millions die in search of the very freedoms the left enjoy, will be assuaged.
The left is like a domestic violence victim who blames herself for the attack, and wont press changes. |
| Posted by: Frank Martin>Frank Martin|| 2003-11-13 12:30:02 PM
Top||
|
| #12: Murat? Caput tuum in ano est(You are an asshat). |
| Posted by: Atrus|| 2003-11-13 2:14:45 PM
Top||
|
| #1: This story becomes more and more confused. Ms Lynch's authorized biography claims she doesn't remember anything. Her interview claims she does. The media claims the Pentagon hyped the story, which is a load of shit. The military never said there was a fight at the hospital. And the video they released clearly does NOT show any combat. The only fighting the military claimed took place in reference to this operation was a diversionary action by the marines. So how is the military hyping it? Not at all. I don't want to belittle her ordeal, but how is she a hero??? Just because she's not dead? What about the others of her group taken captive? Is Shashawna (sp) Johnson getting all of this attention? How about an offer of a free ride to college? This whole thing stinks to high heaven, obviously somebody is lying. Who? Personally I am starting to get the feeling that the media is the culprit. Shocking I know. I think they tried to spin her in to a 'super-heroine' and now that the story is falling apart, they are blaming the government. And poor Jessica is caught in the middle of it. I'm just sick of hearing about it. Well, whatever the true story is, I wish her well. |
| Posted by: Swiggles|| 2003-11-13 11:20:03 AM
Top||
|
#2: Swiggles, it might also be the fault of Jessica herself. She should know what was written about her ordeal in the book. To not only contradict it on TV, but also to blame the Government for exploiting her is alarming to me. And she did say the Government exploited her. She also that the tape of her rescue was wrong.
Add in Larry Flynt saying he has, but won't publish, nude photos of Lynch and in the very next sentence scolding the Bush administration for exploiting Lynch and what do you get? ( Alomst forgot to add in the 'video' circulating the internet. )
I'm sorry for even thinking this, but I'm starting to wonder if Lynch isn't using her ordeal for Left-wing propoganda. |
| Posted by: Charles>Charles|| 2003-11-13 11:44:58 AM
Top||
|
#3: Charles: You hit on the key point, but misinterpreted it...
Larry Flynt says he has pictures of her nekkid, but out of the "goodness of his heart" he's not going to publish them because she's being used by the Bush admin & the army. Since she's not Pam Anderson and doesn't want the pictures to come out, she doesn't have much choice but to say she feels exploited.
It's not even a subtle threat if you assume that Flynt's a complete sleazebag... |
| Posted by: snellenr>snellenr|| 2003-11-13 12:28:33 PM
Top||
|
| #4: I smell extortion. |
| Posted by: Dishman>Dishman|| 2003-11-13 9:03:40 PM
Top||
|
| #1: sounds more like we're trying seperate out any one with proven terrorist activities to make the remainder of MEK more useable. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-11-13 10:47:19 AM
Top||
|
#2: LH shoots and scores!
Upon arrival here Rumsfeld issued a brief written statement on an Iranian opposition militia, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MEK, that is present inside U.S.-controlled Iraq. The organization is on the U.S. government's list of terrorist organizations, and some have raised questions recently about why the militia remains inside Iraq and has not been disarmed by U.S. forces.
"MEK members in Iraq are presently contained within existing camps where they are being screened for possible involvement in war crimes, terrorism or other criminal activity," Rumsfeld said. He said the United States will not allow the MEK to reconstitute in Iraq as a terrorist organization.
|
| Posted by: Steve>Steve|| 2003-11-13 12:36:08 PM
Top||
|
#1: Silly me, I thought Chirac was supposed to be OUR friend On what planet? :-p
Chirac isn't even Saddam's friend; Chirac is Chirac's friend, and sometimes I wonder about that. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut>Barbara Skolaut|| 2003-11-13 9:23:40 AM
Top||
|
#2: "...felt caught in the middle of a conflict between two superpowers." The U.S and ???.
France? Nah.
Anyone else wondering what happened to Saddam's many doubles?
|
| Posted by: Gasse Katze|| 2003-11-13 10:55:58 AM
Top||
|
| #3: Chirac and Sadaam friends? Tell us something we don't know already. Like maybe where Sadaam is hiding? |
| Posted by: Charles>Charles|| 2003-11-13 11:50:45 AM
Top||
|
| #4: caught between superpowers - what was the other superpower?? |
| Posted by: Dan|| 2003-11-13 2:31:24 PM
Top||
|
#1: Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based television network, has repeatedly been accused by U.S. officials of biased reporting, charges the station denies.
Wait. Didn't al'Jazeera admit just the other day to helping plan attacks on US troops? Haven't we found papers tying al'Jazeera staffers to Saddam's intelligence services AND al'Qaeda?
As for the rest of the press -- if the bastards stopped lying, maybe the soldiers would show them more respect. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford>Robert Crawford||http://www.kloognome.com]' target='_blank'>[http://www.kloognome.com]|| 2003-11-13 8:52:44 AM
Top||
|
#2: Given the increadable bias and outright lies in the media. And the fact that Al-Jazeera has been helping plan attacks I would say the military's response is increadably restrained.
Its time the media learned that This is not a T.V. show being staged for their benefit. This is a real war zone and, yes, people are being killed dead. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool>CrazyFool|| 2003-11-13 9:10:13 AM
Top||
|
| #3: simple answer, force reporters to be embeds. That way they are known by local troops. And any funny business by people carrying press credentials can be dealt with by deplying them away from action. |
| Posted by: flash91|| 2003-11-13 10:54:32 AM
Top||
|
| #4: I've dealt w/the media a few times. Some are decent folk and some are such bottom feeding scum suckers that I wouldn't piss in their ear if their brain was on fire. |
| Posted by: Jarhead|| 2003-11-13 11:05:15 AM
Top||
|
| #5: Well al-Jizz only copped to allowing their office to be used. I'm guessing they must be covering the planning of attacks on Americans for November sweeps... |
| Posted by: eLarson|| 2003-11-13 11:33:18 AM
Top||
|
| #6: The "crucial" part is how to steer public opinion against the war and in particular the Bush Admin. Just heard ABC's radio news broadcast. Their lead was Koby Bryant. So that means no Americans were killed yesterday. BTW Kobe only had to visit the court for a short time. Peter Jennings may have more on that tonight. Make sure you tune in. |
| Posted by: Lucky|| 2003-11-13 12:11:29 PM
Top||
|
| #7: A lot of NBA fence sitters are flooding into Kobe's camp. They thinking it more and more likely he can beat this rap. |
| Posted by: Shipman|| 2003-11-13 12:29:47 PM
Top||
|
#8: a really, really bright reporter
Hey! I have a new oxymoron! Thanks Fred! |
| Posted by: CrazyFool>CrazyFool|| 2003-11-13 12:44:19 PM
Top||
|
| #9: Jarhead, the problem is even the decent folk might have bottom feeding scum sucking editors that alter the story or put up misleading headlines. That makes it nearly impossible to tell decent from indecent. |
| Posted by: Yank|| 2003-11-13 3:16:08 PM
Top||
|
| #10: Well, I guess my approach to the problem would be a little contest: "Gather round troopies (and jarheads) - here's the rules - prize is one week's paid R&R in Bangkok - now here's your Reality TV challenge - top prize is awarded to the first fireteam that can successfully insert AN ENTIRE VIDEO CAMERA into a body orifice of a media cameraman in Iraq, such that no part of the camera is visible. No restrictions on method of insertion - anal, oral, inter-occular - hell, if you want to blow your own "custom entry point" into the bugger, that's your call. Contest entries must be accompanied by film (or at least snapshots) of the lucky media twat assisting you in your efforts...." |
| Posted by: Lone Ranger>Lone Ranger|| 2003-11-13 7:33:20 PM
Top||
|
#11: ..the problem is even the decent folk might have bottom feeding scum sucking editors that alter the story or put up misleading headlines. That makes it nearly impossible to tell decent from indecent.
Seems to me then it's up to the authors/reporters to challenge such practices, and those that have any professional integrity will. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama|| 2003-11-13 9:03:14 PM
Top||
|
#12: good posts guys.
Yank, valid point. I could only go off the vibes I got from the reporters I talked to in the past. I trust none of them usually (personal experience) & go off gut instinct. If I've been told to talk to them from my higher then I do without question - I'm just a little less cordial if I think there a 'buddy f*cker'.
LR - nice.
I'd like to start a video in the sunni triangle called "Infidels Gone Wild: When Pissed-Off Americans Attack". Coming from a JDAM near you. |
| Posted by: Jarhead|| 2003-11-13 11:41:58 PM
Top||
|
#2: "More Iraqis are "flooding to the ranks of the guerrillas." Many of these Iraqis are Sunnis who had previously been "on the sidelines" but now believe they can "inflict bodily harm" on the Americans.
• Ammunition is "readily available," making it much easier to mount attacks"
Im not sure this is wrong. It doesnt say that most iraqis support the Baathists, or even that all Sunni Arabs do. It DOES say that larger number of Sunni Arab fence sitters are moving towards the Baathists. Given that Sunni Arabs make up about 20% of the population, that could mean about 10% of the population supports the Baathists now, versus say less than 5% a few months ago. Thats not Viet Nam. or quagmire, but it IS a big problem.
Theyre also saying ammo is readily available - this seems to be true - whether its cause we dont have enough troops to go after all the ammo, or dont have the intell, is another question. But certainly Saddam left behind HUGE stocks of ammo,perhaps with the intention of making possible this very thing, and its a problem. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk|| 2003-11-13 11:02:33 AM
Top||
|
#3: Three steps that won't solve the situation overnight, but should help calm it down a whole lot...
(1) Immediately negotiate with the president of South Korea for the commitment of a division-size force of ROK Marines.
(2) After the ROKs have a chance to get acclimated, select a particularly nasty operational area such as Fallujah. Remove the US troop contingent, replace with the ROKs (and most importantly, remove all media personnel.
(3) Wait one month, then return and ask the locals if they're ready to be good, cooperative citizens. Since anyone with knowledge of the ROK Marines' rep knows they'll say "By Allah's beard, yes, PLEASE!!", replace the ROKs with the original US unit, and move the ROK's to the next hot area.
|
| Posted by: Jeff|| 2003-11-14 12:09:53 AM
Top||
|
#1: God bless the Italian (and Brits, and Poles, and 'stralians, et al) troops, and their supporters back home.
|
| Posted by: Hyper|| 2003-11-13 8:59:42 AM
Top||
|
#1: The coordinated attacks of the insurgent’s looks like it is going to have an affect on secondary countries that provided troops. Japan is already backing off and South Korean President Roh Moo-Hyun has agreed to dispatch no more than 3,000 troops to Iraq. The suicide bombing in this relatively quiet city prompted Portugal to send 128 elite police officers originally slated for Nasiriyah to Basra instead. Also the opposition in Italy can take its toll, what if the Italians are attacked again will they stay, nobody can answer.
The Dutch government shows already some allergic reactions and it will be no surprise to see them pulling out troops at light speed when they got targeted too. Even the CIA says now that there are more than 50.000 insurgents and growing. Iraq may not be a Vietnam, but still worse than Mogadishu. I guess the poker palls Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell and Wolfowitz made the wrong move this time, bluffing does not help here.
|
| Posted by: Murat|| 2003-11-13 7:44:11 AM
Top||
|
| #2: Wrong move my ass. Who was bluffing?? I didn't see anyone bluffing here. BTW, nice photo. See the hammer & sickle??? Does that mean anything to you??? |
| Posted by: Rafael|| 2003-11-13 8:00:33 AM
Top||
|
#4: re: hammer and sickle. It's interesting how this seems more and more to be shaping up into another cold war-esque battle. All the same ol'usual suspects are the exact same people who are behind the scenes working toward the defeat of democracy in Iraq. Apparently, the muddled masses, like Murat, can't think that many moves ahead in life's game of chess.
The Islamists are so blind in their hatred of Jews, that they are willing to ignore the reality of the brutal enemies they will be left to face, should democracy fail.
As for America and their dependence on foreign oil....do you know how we spell fuel cell here in the good ol USA? KMA. |
| Posted by: B|| 2003-11-13 9:29:53 AM
Top||
|
| #5: This is a Rifondazione comunista poster Murat. They miss the good old days of Lenin, Stalin, Togliatti, and Saddam (the left's Pinochet, without the economic development and civil society) as much as you do. Your comments on this matter are, as usual, absolutely worthless. |
| Posted by: BMN|| 2003-11-13 10:18:12 AM
Top||
|
#6: Murat - just because the euros have no backbone means nothing. Y
Wrong move - it was the right move - put ourselves right in the middle of our enemies - now that is not a wrong move.
You should be looking closer to home - I see you have not posted any articles regarding Turkey's military budget for 2004 - Iran was named as a primary focus for the Turkish defense establishment. If this is true Turkey will be back licking our boots! Got spanked by the Eurotrash - your country does not have many options strtegically - and Turkey has ambitions to lead the nations caspian area. For this to happen Iran will need to be dealt with - so start licking! |
| Posted by: Dan|| 2003-11-13 11:25:18 AM
Top||
|
#7: "Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda said the country still isn’t secure enough."
-umm, last time I checked the SDF had these things called "weapons", they could use those things to provide for their own security. I know this isn't the Nippon of 60 yrs ago, (thank God), but did they throw the Bushido out w/the bathwater? |
| Posted by: Jarhead|| 2003-11-13 1:27:18 PM
Top||
|
#8: but did they throw the Bushido out w/the bathwater?
Heh.
I'll bet it's like riding a bicycle. Cultures which fight well rarely loose the touch.
|
| Posted by: Shipman|| 2003-11-13 1:55:15 PM
Top||
|
#9: Shipman, actually, when I was there in the 90s, I recall a local magazine (Tokyo Journal, IIRC) with an article about the US forces stationed in Japan, which quoted a Marine (?) officer as saying that the Japanese SDF couldn't defend a phone booth...
And, any Japanese that has bothered to talk about the subject with me has firmly bought into the notion that Japan is a pacifist nation (it's the Yanks that are the violent maniacs, is the general attitude...)
FWIW |
| Posted by: Carl in N.H.|| 2003-11-13 7:19:32 PM
Top||
|
#10: You may be right in this case Carl... too many fire fights with Godzilla may have screwed up their tactics.
I also noted piss poor AA against Mothra.
|
| Posted by: Shipman|| 2003-11-13 7:53:50 PM
Top||
|
#11: I've got a suggestion: Instead of having Japanese troops deploy to Iraq, let's let them take over for the US forces in Korea. At the same time, let's withdraw the then-useless support forces from Japan that are there primarily to support our forces in Korea. That way we have both an additional force we can deploy to Iraq and the support forces we need to maintain them. The Koreans and Japanese can settle their past differences mano-a-mano, and we can get on with cleaning up the Middle East.
I expect Japanese ability to fight will greatly increase the first time they're attacked by a wall of Korean "student protesters". |
| Posted by: Old Patriot>Old Patriot||http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]' target='_blank'>[http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]|| 2003-11-13 10:56:49 PM
Top||
|
#1: The New Iraqi Army, the one battalion that we have of the New Iraqi Army is currently operating with the 4th Infantry Division out along the Iranian border. They are being supported and backed up by our own coalition forces in the event that they require any sort of augmentation. And the equipment that they currently have is equipment that is appropriate for the missions that they have been assigned, and that is to be a motorized infantry formation.
CPA Press Briefing 11-11-03 |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins>Chuck Simmins||http://blog.simmins.org]' target='_blank'>[http://blog.simmins.org]|| 2003-11-13 8:20:01 AM
Top||
|
#1: US commanders are keen to move away from that heavy-handed approach and pass more responsibility...onto local authorities.
I think someone finally realized, that there aren't enough troops for policing the country. Either fight, or get out (of Baghdad). Leave the policing to the Iraqis. |
| Posted by: Rafael|| 2003-11-13 12:32:47 AM
Top||
|
| #2: Finally, give the raids to the Iraqi's. We should be handling the attack operations. |
| Posted by: Charles>Charles|| 2003-11-13 12:53:03 AM
Top||
|
#3: Yeah -- but first you have to HAVE a trained corps of Iraqi police and soldiers. It takes time to vet them (deBaathification) and train them in a way that contributes to the Iraqi democracy that will emerge.
The vetting is important -- here in the US we've seen a rise in gangs that send one member to enlist so that he can learn about weapons, explosives and tactics. That guy then gets out after his minimum service and shares the wealth.
Not what you want to add to the stew in Fallujah or Tikrit. |
| Posted by: rkb>rkb|| 2003-11-13 7:58:28 AM
Top||
|
#1: Allah willing
But what if Allah isn't willing? Think about that, assf***! |
| Posted by: Spot>Spot|| 2003-11-13 5:20:55 PM
Top||
|
#2: But what if Allah isn't willing?
They seem to presume a lot of things about Allah, don't they? |
| Posted by: Rafael|| 2003-11-13 6:01:03 PM
Top||
|
#3: It a heavy thing to lay on a midwestern guy outa work.
|
| Posted by: Shipman|| 2003-11-13 6:24:12 PM
Top||
|
| #4: You would think that Allah would frown on this guy's obvious use of a crack pipe. |
| Posted by: Super Hose>Super Hose|| 2003-11-13 7:39:00 PM
Top||
|
#5: Allah is willing. But, those stupid f*ckin' muslims just don't get me at all. You'd figure after 1,400 years of twisting my words those dumb bastards would get it right. Why do you think I put them in the desert? I at least gave them oil to compensate for isolating them from all normal humans, but nooooooooo, still have to act like idiots and make the rest of the world w/half a brain laugh at them.
Yes, I know I've got some explaining to do. Ya see, it all started when Mohammad got all stoned on hashish and started talking about little boys.....
BTW - O.J.'s guilty to.
p.s. - Louis Farrakhan wears thongs under his clothes.
p.s.s. - Elvis rocks and I do frown on the use of a crack pipe. |
| Posted by: Allah|| 2003-11-13 11:53:45 PM
Top||
|
#1: Yeah... whatever....
Promises... Promises... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool>CrazyFool|| 2003-11-13 2:39:00 PM
Top||
|
| #2: Paging General Ripper... |
| Posted by: mojo>mojo|| 2003-11-13 2:40:27 PM
Top||
|
| #4: On Sunday they claimed the attack would happen on Monday. Guess the schedule slipped again. |
| Posted by: Yank|| 2003-11-13 3:05:21 PM
Top||
|
#5: Webmaster must have taken Ramadan off
Nah, he was shot dead by Saudi security forces a few months ago |
| Posted by: Paul Moloney|| 2003-11-13 3:14:32 PM
Top||
|
| #6: Kill that many Americans and a couple of zeros get lopped off that 1.3 billion you keep bragging about, asshats. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats>Laurence of the Rats|| 2003-11-13 3:31:49 PM
Top||
|
#7: If we aren't hunting the webmasters down and giving them a bullet in the head, I hope we are at least monitoring every packet that hits their websites.
100k dead Americans really WOULD mean a peninsula made of glass. |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 3:33:27 PM
Top||
|
| #8: blah,blah,blah. I don't believe it, but I will guess this: if 100,000 Americans end up dead, an awful lot of sand will be turned to glass in short order I suspect |
| Posted by: Mike>Mike|| 2003-11-13 3:43:44 PM
Top||
|
#9: Agreed. live comments when we were hearing on the radio about 9/11 (and I'm not an american) were in the lines of "the third world war has began", "the USA are gonna bombs the arabs into oblivion", etc, etc... in an stunned/angry/scared way. Of course, the US response was proportionate, like it or not (a rational war).
If an attack was to cause 100 000 US death, not only would the entire world be on the brink (think 1929 crisis, only worse), but then the response would not be rationnal anymore, and US-haters everywhere would be horrified to see uncle Sam actually behave how they (safely) claim it behave. This would be apocalyptical, and that that's precisely what the islamonazis are wishing for, the apocalypse.
Still, this is pure, unshameful bragging (100 000 deaths : a nuke?), arab-style... which doesn't mean a big attack is planned.
I wonder if the planners in the WH have actually thought on what to do in such an event, how to react, which enney to target,...? |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 4:05:28 PM
Top||
|
#10: Al Quida didn't brag before bombing the embassies or before 9/11. The fact they brag means a) these are not the same guys in charge (ie bin Laden is dead) and b) they cannot accomplish
BTW: Mullah Omar predicted the destruction of the USA; "real soon now". It was two years ago and counting. |
| Posted by: JFM>JFM|| 2003-11-13 5:04:06 PM
Top||
|
#11: Anonymous, the white house has plans to invade Antarctica if it comes to that. They update all the plans on a regular basis. I think you can be really certain that there are plans.
My own guess would be the US wouldn't use nukes, but there would be a massive increase in the tempo of the war on terror and the rearrangement of a lot of boundaries on the Map. House of Saud, dead! Assad of Syria, dead! Niedermeyer, Dead! |
| Posted by: Yank|| 2003-11-13 5:56:46 PM
Top||
|
#12: Yank---Do not forget Iranian Black Turbines Turbans spooled down. If this 100K thing happens, the Arabs will soon feel the combined fury of the US and Israel. The Paleos will be caught in the middle and will just be a grease spot on the L&N. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul|| 2003-11-13 6:29:12 PM
Top||
|
| #13: Are we sure this isn't a Rall or Chomsky article? Sure sounds like it. |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 6:31:20 PM
Top||
|
| #14: Yank - If the US took a 100k strike and didn't use nukes on everybody we all know to be our enemies, I would go apeshit, and I don't think I'd be the only one. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats>Laurence of the Rats|| 2003-11-13 7:48:26 PM
Top||
|
#15: I'm with you Laurence.
But I like to think that the UK would launch even if we dithered.
|
| Posted by: Shipman|| 2003-11-13 7:57:15 PM
Top||
|
#16: Even with 100.000 dead the US would be incapable of killing innocents with nukes. What I think you would see is:
1. A draft reimplemented to fill out the US military at 1,000,000
2. The factory that I work at (and many others) re-tooled from making Silverados into making Strikers.
3. Factories that produce ceramic plating blossum like dandelions in the spring.
4. A dramatic increase in Special Ops forces.
5. 100 % employment in the US
6. 15% of GNP focussed on Defense
7. A defening silence from the ACLU, Dixie Chicks and Dennis Kucinich for a decade or more.
8. A house to house extermination of jihadis by by shaved headed tatood vigilantes.
|
| Posted by: Super Hose>Super Hose|| 2003-11-13 8:35:34 PM
Top||
|
| #17: Once we'd traced the fissile material, I'm sure there would be a few craters created - likely on military targets - and the target nation told to surrender unconditionally or else. AND the gloves would come totally off on the rest of them. You don't want to see what we could generate in total war mode. |
| Posted by: Nero|| 2003-11-13 8:53:42 PM
Top||
|
| #18: 9. me becoming a part of 1. |
| Posted by: Rafael|| 2003-11-13 8:54:33 PM
Top||
|
| #19: Super Hose, you've got it only partially right, it becomes a zero net sum game for the islamists. The moment we lose 100k people is the moment certain cities become so much ash, there wont be a wait to find out without a glimmer of a doubt exactly who did it. To do such would just invite further attacks and cause the US populace at large to disbelieve its own government capable of governing. No I think the response would be to certain countries, disarm immediately, be prepared for entering US troops to take over your country, or simply die, we won't even bother pussyfooting around anymore. Tactical nukes would be used a lot more commonly as well in such an instance and the draft would exceed well over 4 million to accomdate the number of countries we'd need to pacify. |
| Posted by: Val|| 2003-11-13 9:10:28 PM
Top||
|
#20: "the draft would exceed well over 4 million "
No need, they'd be turning away millions of volunteers by that point. |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 9:50:22 PM
Top||
|
| #21: "bring it on..." |
| Posted by: Rawsnacks|| 2003-11-13 10:04:58 PM
Top||
|
| #22: The United States Armed Forces are in the Habit of IFLICTING a disporportional amount of casualities. At 100K dead, figure it out for yourself. And all it would take is one Trident submarines full missle load. I said after 9/11 that we should take the nukes off of all the Tridents in one boat and replace them with dummy warheads and inform the Russians, Chinese, British and the French that what they are when they get fired. Target each one at the singke most prominent mosque, park, museum, whatever in every major Islamic city in the world. And inside each dummy is a note in English and Arabic. THE NEXT TIME WE ARE NOT GOING TO FUCK AROUND. YOU HAVE ONE WEEK TO DELIVER THE PEOPLE WE WANT AND THEN WE START SHOOTING |
| Posted by: Anonymous|| 2003-11-13 10:59:53 PM
Top||
|
#23: It would take about a dozen 250KT nukes. One each automatically slams into Mecca and Medina. You want to worship a black rock, we'll vaporize your damned black rock and the city built around it. Innocent victims? No such thing - merely enablers. Riyadh given one chance to surrender, then BOOM. Egypt told what to do, when, to whom. Fail, or refuse, and a big, dirty nuke smacks Aswan. Cairo and everything from Aswan to the Med becomes uninhabitable. Not much else to go to there... Assad told to surrender unconditionally, the Paleo terror asshats murdered like the thugs they are by gunship, cannon fire, or whatever we damned well please. Damascus could become the next glass city, but probably not - too close to Israel. No such problem with Teheran, Qom, Bandar Abbas, and dozens of other Iranian cities. You want to continue to exist? Bring us the heads of your turbantops. Just the heads, we don't even need the turbans. Miss one, and somebody (probably a large number of somebodies) fries. Take off the gloves in the Afghanistan problem. Seed the Afghan/Pak border with mines - maybe nuke mines. Start flying it with Spectres, with a shoot-on-sight order for anyone within three km of the border. Give the Indians a free hand in Kashmir. If China bitches, slam a dud Tomahawk into the Three Gorges dam - I'm sure they'll get the message. What was the estimate of the death toll if that thing crumbled - a third of China destroyed, including 400 million people? NO nation could withstand that, not even China. And to think they did that to themselves!
Somebody's not done their research, or they've been partaking of too much of the poppy. Either way, they are making a terrible, terrible mistake. The guy in the White House right now WILL pull the trigger. I'll gladly help him, if the idiotarians do something that stupid.
As for fifth column weenies like Chomsky, Sarandon, Kuccinch, Moore, Kerry, Martin, Kennedy, Leahy, Clinton(s), Rather, Jennings, Carter, Soros, and thousands of others, it would have been better for them never to have been born. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot>Old Patriot||http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]' target='_blank'>[http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]|| 2003-11-13 11:18:48 PM
Top||
|
| #24: Above post not by the Anonymous further up the tree |
| Posted by: Cheddarhead|| 2003-11-13 11:19:35 PM
Top||
|
|
|
