202. resonance - Dec. 17, 1998 - 10:38 PM PT
Yes, I am absolutely sure.
There is no such thing as a 'stable' isotope of uranium.
203. BobaFett - Dec. 17, 1998 - 10:41 PM PT
What about U 238? That isn't stable?
204. BobaFett - Dec. 17, 1998 - 10:45 PM PT
I'm also kind of curious why you put the word 'stable' in quotes as if that's not a proper term. Non-radioactive isotopes are in fact called "stable."
205. resonance - Dec. 17, 1998 - 10:51 PM PT
Here is a detailed examination of Gulf exposure to depleted uranium. It's quite interesting. What's more, if you read it, you will see that the military protocol for testing for du contamination is to check with dosimetry and other radiation-sensing devices. And it goes into explicit detail about the effects associated with exposure to depleted uranium. Anyone with familiarity with the effects of radiation on the body will be able to nod their head vigorously -- it's the exact same symptoms.
Another page on DU which has more in-depth analyses of the military usage of depleted uranium. An excerpt for it, which pretty much clears this matter up:
"Depleted uranium (DU) is a waste by-product of the uranium enrichment
process in which the highly radioactive U-235 isotope is separated from the
uranium ore for use in nuclear weapons and reactors. Depleted uranium is
60% as radioactive as natural uranium and has a half-life of 4.5 billion
years. "
206. resonance - Dec. 17, 1998 - 10:53 PM PT
U-238 is not stable. It decays to th-232 and Tc-99. It is highly radioactive, although not anywhere as bad as 'weapons grade' uranium -- U-235.
207. resonance - Dec. 17, 1998 - 10:55 PM PT
Sorry, that's U-235. U-238 decays to Th-234, not -232.
208. BobaFett - Dec. 17, 1998 - 10:57 PM PT
Well. Consider me well-corrected. Thanks for the info.
Just one question:
Are you *really* sure U 238 isn't stable?
(g)
209. resonance - Dec. 17, 1998 - 11:47 PM PT
Depleted uranium rounds don't really punch through armor so much as they burn through it.
Incidentally, it isn't really the explosions which kill people inside an APC or a tank once a HV shell hits it. In most cases, it's the vacuum caused by the high velocity round punching through the vehicle that kills everyone inside. From what I understand, it's much more effective at killing soldiers (though, of course, we don't try to kill them so much as maim them because maiming them ties up additional personnel) than the actual HE explosives.
210. RustlerPike - Dec. 18, 1998 - 12:07 AM PT
LooneyToonces:
If you were Iraq, I'd have you bombed.
The link you provided in Message #178 is good. The descriptions of Saddam's terror machine, the fear that results in a "remarkably relaxed" atmosphere, because no one dares talk about politics... and the writer's conclusion:
"Maybe in the climate-controlled corridors of the State Department in Washington, Saddam Hussein looks like a dictator so hated by his people that if America keeps up the pressure long enough, someone will overthrow him.
In Iraq, that looks laughable. Saddam's security apparatus has defeated every threat to his power for 30 years. And even if Saddam were overthrown, who's to say his successor would be any more sympathetic towards the West?
The Americans haven't got a strategy, they've got a lottery ticket".
211. wexxford1 - Dec. 18, 1998 - 12:32 AM PT
One of the Amurrican TV bimbos in Baghdad claimed to have heard an Iraqi say that the bombing was not appreciated.This on-the-spot entertainment for U.S. consumption suggests the moron market may be larger than previsously measured . Say 99.9%. And the Brits need to bomb,too. Shades of Britain v Argentina during the Maggie theatrical days. Fraygrants--You like seeing that stock market go up-up-up to show the power of people's capitalism?
212. wexxford1 - Dec. 18, 1998 - 12:33 AM PT
This U235 filler is too much,lads.Did i not hear a TV trained monekey chatter about u235 hidden by Saddam hissel in ice cream trucks?
213. RustlerPike - Dec. 18, 1998 - 12:43 AM PT
Lest anyone misinterpret what I meant above - I meant no RL threat to Azure. I just think Azure/Loonces is being an asshole, and I also harbor the suspicion that he/she is a racist and a Jewhater. He/she has made childishly hateful comments about Indians, Africans, and Israelis (the charge that Netanyahu was "money-grubbing" was not lost upon me), and like I said, he/she sounds to me like someone talking from a deep sense of inferiority.
Saddam is a sadistic dictator who purposely, I repeat, *purposely* targets civilians. If the DU contamination is a fact, it is an example of *unintended*, most likely *unknown* (at the time of battle) side effects of war. The anti-tank rounds were fired, I should imagine, with the intent to kill tanks, not kids. Whereas when Saddam attacked Kurdish, Marsh Arab, Iranian, Israeli, and Iraqi opposition civilians - he did so *with the intent to kill them*.
A gang of sadistic killers is is on the loose in LA. They torture their victims before killing them. One of the gang's hideouts is stormed by police. One of the bullets shot by police during the firefight enters a water pipe, and the neighbors' kids downstairs get lead poisoning. So who's the bad guy?
214. resonance - Dec. 18, 1998 - 1:12 AM PT
"If the DU
contamination is a fact, it is an example of
*unintended*, most likely *unknown* (at the time of
battle) side effects of war. The anti-tank rounds
were fired, I should imagine, with the intent to kill
tanks, not kids. "
The United States has known for a long time that antitank depleted uranium rounds give off massive amounts of particulate radioactive chaff when they hit something. And they also know that this dust is really dangerous. I'm sure that there will be a lot of posting in the morning about radioactive poisoning WRT U-238 dust, so I'm going to clear somethign up now.
Depleted uranium is not just U-238. It contains less than half a percent of the highly fissile U-235, and also contains some U-234 (the third naturally occurring isotope of uranium, a daughter isotope of U-238). Depleted uranium does give off gamma radiation, and neutrons -- just a very minute amount of it.
What depleted uranium does give off is a high concentration of alpha and beta particles. These are large nuclear particles. They are *mostly* stopped by clothing and skin, so as far as we know there isn't really much danger to something like having a steel-sheathed sheet of depleted uranium serve as armor. The only time that alpha and beta emitters are really dangerous is when they get introduced into the inside of the body, via ingesting them or inhaling them or getting them in an open wound. Once they get inside the body they're really, really damaging, but they have to get into it first.
215. ScottLoar - Dec. 18, 1998 - 1:14 AM PT
Message #200: "hot enough to make a Geiger counter sing four part harmony" - good turn of words, very good.
216. resonance - Dec. 18, 1998 - 1:15 AM PT
Of course, having depleted uranium dust all over everything is almost the best way you could think of to introduce it into someone's body. You breathe it, it goes into your mouth when you open it, it gets on your skin and hands and clothes and you carry it around with you until it gets introduced into a cut or with your food or drink. And the US military knows this, because they did extensive studies on alpha and beta emitter debris during the fifties and sixties nuclear weapons test series.
Once alpha and beta are into the food chain there's a serious damned problem. And the US knows that just as much as it knows that being exposed to U-238 dust is bad for soldiers. And families. And children. I think there was even a study done on the likely outcome of a NATO/Warsaw Pact conflict, and one of the suggested outcomes was that parts of Europe would become unlivable due to all the radioactive dust and debris. The round hits the tank and dusts everything arund it, and then when the tank catches on fire the heat and flames disperses the dust even more.
But the depleted uranium round is such a damned good weapon that the military doesn't want to give it up. You can put all your soldiers in MOPP gear and make sure that they don't breathe the dust or get it on them, after all. And you can gloss over the dangers -- most soldiers, after all, won't know enough radiobiology to understand the trouble they're in. Agent orange? Nerve gas? Remember? The problem is, you can't really put the citizens of Kuwait and Iraq in the same kind of protective gear, and they have to live in the dust.
217. bloodnfire - Dec. 18, 1998 - 4:37 AM PT
Toonces. When RustlerPike says that 'if you were Iraq he'd have you bombed' [his Message #210] he paints a rather interesting picture. You get awfully mean and angry sometimes, rather like Saddam, would you agree ? At the same time, by your own admission, you feel 'horribly, horribly lonely', as you stated in the Israel thread some days ago. That side of you represents the innocent suffering of the civilian population in Iraq. Rustler doesn't mean to bomb you of course. Bombing you wouldn't help the 'horribly afraid' part of you. What's needed for Iraq and Toonces is for loving hands to reach out in compassionate help imho. Blessings!
218. resonance - Dec. 18, 1998 - 5:04 AM PT
Actually, I forgot something. When U-238 breaks down into Th-234 it does release gamma. Which means that it doesn't have to be inside you to damage you, though if you ingest the dust you're in for a rough time. And Thorium-234 and the next daughter isotope, Protactinium-234, both are very speedy decays -- the first is measurable in days, the second in seconds -- and both release beta and gamma radiation in the act of decaying. So each time an atom of U-238 decays, it's almost as if three atoms are decaying. Which means a lot more radiation.
219. RustlerPike - Dec. 18, 1998 - 7:14 AM PT
resonance:
If the US army is using weapons that cause disease in both their own soldiers and in civilians, then that is a very bad thing, I agree. I still don't see how it is particularly relevant to the subject at hand. It could be callous and negligent, but it's still not intentional. The only conclusion one may draw from this is that depleted uranium rounds should not be used anymore - not that there is any parallel between Iraq under Saddam and the USA under Bill.
What is really fascinating is what will happen when this attack is over, assuming it will be over before Ramadan (sp.?). Will Saddam come out the winner? Will sanctions be lifted? Is the US effectively abdicating its position as leader of the world? What will Russia, France and China do - if anything? Will there be an "opposition" party in the UN now, composed of everyone who doesn't want the US and Britain running the show anymore? Will the bombings continue after Ramadan? Until what? Until when?
220. jonesatlaw - Dec. 18, 1998 - 7:55 AM PT
Perhaps the third try is the charm. HEREt; is the link I tried to get on DU yesterday.
221. jonesatlaw - Dec. 18, 1998 - 8:03 AM PT
I heard an Iraqi here in the U.S. day that if we wanted to weaken Saddam Hussein, we should be dropping food, not bombs. Perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but it started me to thinking. What if the U.N. were to turn the "No fly zones" into safe havens for Iraqi's, by having a ground presence there. We could ask for Red Crescent help in feeding and caring for refugees, and opposition to Saddam would have a jumping off point. I haven't had time to weigh this out carefully, so there could be many complications I haven't yet thought of. It just seems that Ramadan is the perfect time for such an exercise.
222. resonance - Dec. 18, 1998 - 9:15 AM PT
Message #219
Yes, yes, I wasn't arguing about anything to do with Bill Clinton or Saddam Hussein. Good god, did you think I was arguing to support Bombolurina's insane conspiracy theory or something?
223. lazygeorge - Dec. 18, 1998 - 9:29 AM PT
Ever since I saw the picture of a T62 with its barrel ripped open by an oblique strike by an Israeli Tungsten alloy armor piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot round I have questioned the need for US "stabiloy" ammunition. The Soviets had depleted uranium liners in their armor piercing shaped charges for some time. It is likely that not all the Uranium dust is of US origin.
224. lazygeorge - Dec. 18, 1998 - 9:31 AM PT
I like the idea of dropping food but putting a large number of "crusaders" in Iraq would upset a lot people in the region.
225. jexster - Dec. 18, 1998 - 9:45 AM PT
PsyWar:
Leaflets are being dropped on Regular Iraqi Army forces prominently featuring pics of the burned out hulls of Iraqi tanks.
"You have not been targeted but you are being watched. Stay in your positions. Do not move South. If you do, the Coalition will toast your asses"
226. RustlerPike - Dec. 18, 1998 - 10:16 AM PT
res:
I was under the impression that Toonces, aka AzureNW, had brought the subject up, and I was basically arguing with him/her. Then it seemed as if you were siding with her/him - I guess you weren't, sorry. Is Bombolurina back? Is she Azure?
I just finished watching Tariq Aziz (not a stupid man) talking about the "Zionist clique" surrounding Clinton - with "Zionist" an obvious euphemism for "Jewish" - and naming Cohen, Albright, and Berger. Hmmm - interesting! So this is turning, more and more, into the Jews and the Crusaders against the Muslims?
227. jonesatlaw - Dec. 18, 1998 - 1:04 PM PT
Perhaps we can enlist major republican leaders for a children's crusade.
228. toonces - Dec. 18, 1998 - 1:08 PM PT
resonance -
You sound pretty knowledgeable about depleted uranium. Do you know whether the heavier cruise missles being dropped by B-52s in the latest bombing raid contain DU? They are described as more capable of penetrating heavily fortified underground bunkers than the smaller Tomahawk I have read contain DU. Hundreds of them are being shot into the heart of Baghdad.
229. jonesatlaw - Dec. 18, 1998 - 1:26 PM PT
Toonces, bunker penetration is more a factor of detonator timing than density. I belive that the warheads are capped with a tungsten alloy spike or cap, and that they can sense the number of levels they pass through prior to detonation. This is what makes them effective. As I believe resonance explained earlier, DU is more useful in high speed projectiles such as artillary, and not slow ones such as a cruise missle.
230. jonesatlaw - Dec. 18, 1998 - 1:27 PM PT
Should be "artillery."
231. wexxford1 - Dec. 18, 1998 - 2:37 PM PT
PUBLIC RELATIONS RULES ! Tis Dday 3 of Amurrican bombing of Baghdad&Iraq. And Amurrican reporters still perch on the roof of the PR Ministry bldg in Baghbad,babbling away . Need any more proof that the Field Marshals of PR run the news/entertainment world ? Hyuh. Hyuh.Hyuh.
232. Ptoben - Dec. 18, 1998 - 5:12 PM PT
All I can say is that be dammed glad you christians, that your missonarys didn't convert everybody yet. It would be quite a problem if you had no heathen's to bomb. In 1998 im afraid the crusade bit of the pope bombing Benny Hinn & the TBN gang wouldn't go over well.
233. toonces - Dec. 18, 1998 - 5:22 PM PT
Did anyone else see this story?
/*
[P. Shenon, N.Y. Times News Service]
Senior Clinton administration officials say that the air strikes ordered Wednesday against Iraq, the largest and most punishing since the 1991 Gulf War, will likely leave the United States with little ability to closely monitor Iraq's capability to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
The attack, they said, will almost certainly mean the end of the 7-year-old U.N. weapons inspection program in Iraq, and will force the United States to maintain a large military presence in the gulf region for at least several more years.
While senior U.S. officials insisted that the air strikes would significantly hamper Iraq's programs to make poison gas and nuclear weapons, they readily acknowledged that the weapons programs would continue and perhaps accelerate after the bombing ends.
Without the U.N. inspections program, they said, the Clinton administration would have only a limited ability to determine whether Iraq is manufacturing and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction - and to prevent Iraq from threatening its neighbors with poison gas.
*/
234. toonces - Dec. 18, 1998 - 5:30 PM PT
/*
The United States, they said, will need to leave a large military force in the region for the foreseeable future at a cost to taxpayers of billions of dollars a year, ready to strike whenever U.S. intelligence agencies develop evidence from aerial surveillance to show that the Iraqis are close to deploying chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
*/
Seriously, wouldn't any reasonable person suspect a conspiracy in this scenario?
235. toonces - Dec. 18, 1998 - 5:33 PM PT
"...a large military force in the region for the foreseeable future at a cost to taxpayers of billions of dollars a year..."
Merry Christmas, Israel.
236. toonces - Dec. 18, 1998 - 5:38 PM PT
As far as I am concerned, there is not one shread of reason to doubt that the military colluded with Clinton on this for mutual job security. I wouldn't expect cold-blooded murderers to have any compunction about lying.
237. RyckNelson - Dec. 18, 1998 - 5:39 PM PT
toonces, feed on this:
Scenario; Clinton is being bought by big armament contractors to bomb Iraq. The UN inspections weren't profitable enough. Now they need to have more orders of missles. With the video feeds from Iraq, the orders come rushing in. Clinton retires with a hefty payment from the contractors for starting the bombing which caused the orders to come rolling in. He gets his "commission".
Like it? Cute, eh? Who cares anyway. It's all a bunch of fucked in the head rulers who haven't a clue in hell what to do.
238. Ptoben - Dec. 18, 1998 - 5:43 PM PT
And on top of that great hands on training for our boys and girls.And a few dead heathens.
239. MyCampbellSoup - Dec. 18, 1998 - 8:02 PM PT
Hello, this is My Campbell Soup. How is everyone? Fine here in the big city; a lot of sirens screaming! Anyway, is this the final attack on Saddam? Are we finished Tomahawking them? What do you think this accomplished? I think it was a very successful move, however the timing may be questioned; the trial will begin when? Oh well, that is just my point of view. What is your view?
240. thomasd - Dec. 18, 1998 - 8:59 PM PT
Let's summarize what we accomplished in Iraq in the last three days:
1) Achieved objective for only 18 of 88 targets using 290 cruise missiles at a million bucks a pop, indicating some combination of poor planning and technology.
2) Managed to provoke Russia to withdraw its US ambassadors for the first time since the Cold War started, perhaps heralding the start of a new era of distrust between the US and Russia.
3) Managed to provoke near worldwide condemnation of this US assault; 'war' is not an applicable term here, with a widespread understanding that *this* is the Clinton 'wag the dog' strategy.
4) Showed wildly inconsistent US policy wrt Iraq; first discouraging UN inspections, while publicly asserting the opposite, then attacking Iraq with inadequate armament to achieve any practical goal.
241. BobaFett - Dec. 18, 1998 - 10:46 PM PT
Jones at Law:
You'll be happy to know that B-1's are bombing Iraq.
242. PincherMartin - Dec. 18, 1998 - 11:38 PM PT
ThomasD --
Regarding your list at #240:
1) I think that 18 out of 88 targets is not too bad after a couple days of missile attacks. Consider that the wildly inflated claims of the new military technologies used during the Gulf War did not stand up after post-war investigations and it might be the case that the military has decided to give more accurate claims even as the fighting goes on In this way, they save themselves another embarrassment
2) This is a bad development, but not a surprise. The U.S. needs to remove Saddam quickly or they may lose international backing. This charade has gone on long enough.
3) Agreed
4) This is the key issue. How much longer can this ridiculous policy go on. Either remove the man or declare victory and get the hell of there.
243. RustlerPike - Dec. 19, 1998 - 2:07 AM PT
I'll be the bad guy and say I'm relieved that they are finally bashing the guy, and I'm sure that they are making sure it hurts him. Getting the guy in Tikrit, for example, is a good thing. Anyone looking at Saddam Hussein understands that this is one guy who will understand nothing but force.
If the bomb damage has been as miserable as you guys are saying, then maybe that's because Clint and the military know that, should they lose a single air force pilot, the American public will hang them by their balls, and therefore are going only for 'remote control' bombs.
I thank God for making the United States and Britain the world's leading powers, and not the Russians, the Germans, or the French. Having said that - I am pretty sure this bombing campaign will not save us from Saddam - but it may go some way towards forcing his hand.
One thing I don't understand is - is this guy still producing misiles? Can anyone answer that? I thought he only had a few scuds left - and here is the US, bombing missile production factories. Does this make sense?
244. wexxford1 - Dec. 19, 1998 - 5:31 AM PT
Toonces ,baby. A couple billion dollars a year?Peanuts.Whaddya wantto do ? Outsource the Amurrican military to cut-off-yer-nose fighters like the Russians, the Krauts and the Turks ?
245. wexxford1 - Dec. 19, 1998 - 5:35 AM PT
thomasd. Baby, you forget a most important function of the Iraq thing: Entertainment for morons .Thass Right .Thinks of the many thousand hours of entertainment it will give the plain people of Amurrica.They wanns see us bomb the living guts out of them wogs and furriners.Why, it would take Hollywood years to equal all them entertaining blasts .Next target ?
246. wexxford1 - Dec. 19, 1998 - 5:40 AM PT
Rustler,baby. So you're among those Amurricans who say that only one single baddie in Iraq needs to be removed--then,apparently,the place will be quiet as New Jersey . After a glance at your stuff, you qualify to scribble editrorials for the morons who read News Corp publications.
247. wexxford1 - Dec. 19, 1998 - 5:43 AM PT
RYCKNelson ,baby. Check oil glut prices this morning.Check reports of oiul price meetings in Madrid.Add 2+2. Its simple ,baby.It is spelled O-I-L.
248. kastal - Dec. 19, 1998 - 6:09 AM PT
The American government is too much.It is mad to attack Iraq.
249. gravel - Dec. 19, 1998 - 6:45 AM PT
wexxford1:
You seem to find the televised bombings lacking. Perhaps this scenario is more challenging, more worthy of your consideration:
An elite group of commandos practices and refines its skills for years. These people must train to infiltrate the enemy, maintain disguise, secure weapons once inside the enemy's borders, carry out their mission and escape. To ensure success and the fitness of each member, practice is at least as difficult as the mission itself will be. Practice includes the detonating of bombs in occupied buildings.
You're a genius at strategy, an artist. Getting away with killing your own people proved this. Now, on your most glorious day, your commandos need only to get a few gelcaps of biological weapons into the hometown of that one Amurrican you've been following on the net. He did say he hadn't been sufficiently entertained, didn't he?
250. kastal - Dec. 19, 1998 - 10:30 AM PT
If Iraqi military is as powerful as American's, would American government still bombarding her? Since the American President has the proof that Iraq is capable to produce chemical and biological weapons which will be posing dangerious to others,why do something that brings harm and death to the people of Iraq.It should be better do something to remove the head of the country concerned instead of bombing the country to cause more devastation and suffer to her people.
251. gravel - Dec. 19, 1998 - 10:49 AM PT
kastal:
Iraq is its people. Perhaps the United States feels as you do in the last sentence of Message #250, and that's the reason this show of force is so limited (compared to what it might be if we really wanted to do damage). Is this reasonable?
252. RustlerPike - Dec. 19, 1998 - 11:30 AM PT
Wexxford, baby, learn how to write. I didn't understand half of what you dribbled up there. And, having grown up in New Jersey, I can tell you this: the quiet is just a facade (at least in my town). Inside, it is a sick, sad place.
253. jonesatlaw - Dec. 19, 1998 - 3:06 PM PT
Boba- WOW- B-1's finally are operational when we need them. Are they doing anything the BUFFs can't do? Didn't think so.
254. Ptoben - Dec. 19, 1998 - 4:46 PM PT
Bill & Sox stopped the bombing today. We should have a dead heathen count in a couple of days. They have to gather them all up from the churches,playgrounds,ect. place them in a bombed out chemical gas factory, for a photo op.
255. jkuzmak - Dec. 19, 1998 - 7:27 PM PT
Why does not another country on the face of this wide world besides Britain, (and Israel?) support us in this action?. Is it not strange that we are the only ones who are concerned with Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? It seems that in matters of foreign policy the layman is almost completely in the dark. Thank God we have responsible men in congress taking care of our affairs.
256. Wombat - Dec. 19, 1998 - 8:50 PM PT
Ptoben:
More likely they'll take them out of a bombed barracks or chemical plant and put them in a playground.
257. gravel - Dec. 20, 1998 - 2:44 AM PT
jkuzmak:
Your post #255 would make a good letter to the editor of your local newspaper. And don't change a word of it.
258. wexxford1 - Dec. 20, 1998 - 3:49 AM PT
The lack of any press/TV criticism re Iraq is atrocious!Had Goebbels arranged for Amurrican reporters to stay in Berlin Hotels and report on Berlin & environs bombing,we would rightly have smelled a rat. But Saddam arranges for the Amurrican press corps to stay,report and presumably be protected in Baghdad and the Amurrican press glides by that fact . Where are we here-- in PR Looneyville ? Who arranged for all these trained Amurrican TV monkeys to stay in Baghdad and broadcast from baghdad. May we please have their names ? And may we hear the purpose of their trip ? Oh, PR, thy name is puke!
259. wexxford1 - Dec. 20, 1998 - 4:00 AM PT
gravel, you are a typical humorless,parochial Amurrican. Why,baby, when the Falklands "war" was created to keep the British morons marching, at least a few politicians yelped at this form of PR .And a great movie " Ploughman's Lunch" was manufactured to show how the Brits used PR to keep their population dumb. ( It'll cost you a few bucks to rent the thing.But do it gravel,to see how censorship is avoided by the Brits.) You perhaps, are one of those people who believe that even the Northern Ireland thingy was real .More people die of booze in a Northern Ireland month than expired during the 30 years of the " thrubbles. " My dear man ,PR+ the military is one of the oldest social control games around .As for terrorism, check out the fact that the one-time head of the supposed IRA, Sean Mc Bride,paraded around Dublin with the Nobel Peace prize insignia on one lapel of his suit, and the Lenin Peace Prize on t'other .Dublin laughed at the PR spectacle . But you,like most Amurricans, you blather in ignorance of facts . The sight of chattering Amurrican "reporters" on the roof of the Iraq PR HQ in Baghdad ought to make you at least question the reasons for the flacks' total control.
260. wexxford1 - Dec. 20, 1998 - 4:08 AM PT
RustlerPike-- I can see baby, how uncomfortable you are at the fact that you live and work in a PR-controlled society.You froth at the mouth when an expert points out that Amurrican flackery is all .Make fun of it baby! See Larry King interview Iraq's spokesman .See the chief correspondent of the Noo Yawk Times, Johnny " Fatboy" Apple deliver stories on food and booze. See ABC/CBS/NBC do their looneytunes nonsense on Washington and Iraq. See none of the above do snything on oil prices. But then, perhaps you prefer a media run by flacks,employing hacks.Shame on you,baby.
261. gravel - Dec. 20, 1998 - 4:10 AM PT
wexxford1:
I see your passion, and it's more than a lot of people seem to have, so there's hope. But I honestly don't understand exactly what it is that you're screaming about. Can you please give me one clear sentence to which I might try to respond?
262. wexxford1 - Dec. 20, 1998 - 4:13 AM PT
Gravel baby.Trained Amurrican monekeys chatter and broadcast to you from the roof of the Iraq PR headquarters in Baghdad .That seems normal to you ? Hey.No wonder you can't read and understand an iota of criticism of PR controls.You are a flack perchance ?
263. gravel - Dec. 20, 1998 - 4:26 AM PT
wexxford1:
Just exactly who do you feel forces you to rely solely upon the television news for your information?
Why do you demand I do research for you about the political philosophies of other countries and individuals?
Why are you screaming at me if I've said something that provokes you into thinking? Isn't that self-defeating?
Show me something that proves your assertion that I can't read.
What is it that you'd like to say about Iraq?
264. wexxford1 - Dec. 20, 1998 - 4:27 AM PT
"In dealing with rogues,a purist American approach is dangerous." So sez Brookings Institution spokesman Richard Haass.At lease we have one sensible voice arising in Amurrican media . " It stiimulated a backlash and all sorts of ripple effects that are counterproductive."
So,gravel, who benefits ?
265. wexxford1 - Dec. 20, 1998 - 4:28 AM PT
gravel--Read Brookings statement and learn something baby.You are the victim of PR crappola.
266. gravel - Dec. 20, 1998 - 4:32 AM PT
wexxford1:
Read it yourself and tell me what it says. I don't take orders from you.
267. wexxford1 - Dec. 20, 1998 - 5:56 AM PT
PR Packaging and handling gets a good airing in to-day's obits of harry Treleaven, the J Walter Thompson fella who helped create Tricky Dickie Nixon.Readit, gravel baby, and realize that you live in a society that's 99.99% a PR creation of the Madison Avenue field marshals like Harry .Its all necessary to keep the morons marching,baby! And do read Brookings for your own good . Otherwise your value to the thread filling job will be diminished .
268. laflame - Dec. 20, 1998 - 5:56 AM PT
Gee, has anyone on this thread mentioned that Iraq has this powerful army and weapons ONLY when it is NOT fighting a war?
How about the fact that Butler is a hack that no one will employ if he loses the inspection job? Or the fact that he wrote his report while consulting with US? And how come we can find weapons to bomb, but we can't find weapons to inspect? Gee, boys and girls, if the defense industry is this desperate for money, maybe we could put on a show. Singing, dancing, we could raise money and save those Lockheed jobs in Newt's now vulnerable district. Yea, come on, everybody sing-
You say Eye-raq
I say Ee-raq
You say Air-rab
I say Aa-rab
Eye-raq, Ee-raq
Air-rab, Aa-rab
Let's blow the towel-heads up.
You say BP
I say Mobil
They want their homes
We want their oil.
BP, Mobil
We need
Their oil.
Let's blow the towel-heads up.
Do you
Remember when life was grand?
Pith helmuts were in,
Saddamn had no sin,
And we danced in the moonlight
With the Shah of Iran?
We say embargo
But how could we know
Oil could burn
But prices
Could plunge so?
Embargo
Till we know
How profits can surge
Oh, let's blow the towel-heads up.
Hey, why do we have to go with Desert Fox? It's old hat. How about Desert Farce? And who says we have to begin with an F or an S? WE ARE A SUPER-POWER, Like the Green Lantern or Wonder Woman. Why not Desert Ejaculation. Or Desert Marsala. Or just plain Murder?
269. wexxford1 - Dec. 20, 1998 - 6:09 AM PT
Inflame. Well Done Man ! And now for a really good insight. Immediately check the ted Rall cartoon ( UP Syndicate) asking ;"Why does Clinton always call him Saddam?".Answer. " We're both u.S. Government Employees...". Oh,gravel baby. What a one-note ninney you are. Read that Brookings thing along with the Rall cartoon and even you may get the drift of what's goin' on."
270. laflame - Dec. 20, 1998 - 6:41 AM PT
Wexxy, that's LAflame. As in Woman, baby! Are you the lost soul of Frank Sinatra, baby?
271. gravel - Dec. 20, 1998 - 6:45 AM PT
wexxford1:
Are you in the .01% of the population who escaped? Congratulations. As Will Rogers said, not all of us can be heroes; if we were, who'd sit on the curb and clap?
I wish to keep my "thread filling job." What are my duties, and what does this place do, anyway?
272. FreeToChoose - Dec. 20, 1998 - 9:08 AM PT
Is anyone else troubled by Cohen's announcement that we have set back Iraq's missile program by a year?
We dropped more cruise missiles in the last four days than we did in the entire Desert Storm, and the missile program is where it was in late 1997? Is this some sort of great accomplishment? Does this mean we can now count on annual bombings just to stay in place?
273. CalGal - Dec. 20, 1998 - 9:59 AM PT
FTC,
Oh, good. I thought I was the only person who wondered.
For that matter, what on earth did we prove with the bombing? We bombed them for four days and....stop? It makes a difference this time?
274. misterleo - Dec. 20, 1998 - 11:00 AM PT
contrasting the number of missiles fired in this last attack to the number fired during the gulf war is silly.....as mentioned more than once by both news folks and defense spokesmen, the technology has improved since the gulf war and the us relies more on unmanned, precision-guided missiles now than it did then.....compare total tonnage dropped on Iraq and you can appreciate the difference...and does no one remember the days and nights of bombings during the gulf war?...considerably more damage over considerably more days.....
and why?....all you oil and military-industrail complex conspiracy theorists should spend a few moments catching up on the size and scope of the us government, the bureacracy that is the department of defense, and the current price of oil.....believing that the us government is capable of some careful, twisted plot to bomb Arabs or keep the Islamic world down gives great credit to an institution usually criticized for its failures and inability to act....and the department of defense is both master of machiavellian manipulations of the world stage and inept warriors that can't destroy one wild and crazy guy in Iraq?...seems a bit contradictory.....and the price of oil fell after the bombings...hardly makes sense for the oil companies to encourage/plot/contrive a series of events that keeps their profits down....
folks, the evil guys aren't wearing us military uniforms, government-issue navy blue suits, and oil-stained comboy boots...but it sure seems easy to blame them when the the messiness of international relations turns into explosions on CNN....
275. FreeToChoose - Dec. 20, 1998 - 11:27 AM PT
misterleo
Have you ever been accused of not speaking coherently?
If our technology has improved (and I believe it has), then the same number of bombs this time should generate even more results this time. Yet you then go on to suggest that more damage occurred during the Gulf War.
Which is it?
276. misterleo - Dec. 20, 1998 - 11:36 AM PT
most of the time its the writing that isn't so coherent....the point was that comparing numbers of missiles from entirely different operations separated by eight years is inacurate and misleading (if the idea is to put the second bombing campaign in some perspective)...better to look at the tonnage dropped, which was certainly less this last time, and certainly did less damage....I am just one of those people that doesn't like hearing the same comparison made over and over when the initial point--how much firepower was unleashed this last time--is lost with repetition and becomes, instead, a lazy way of implying the attack had more firepower than the gulf war.....
ok, so I am not particularly clear and concise...call it a job hazard...
277. FreeToChoose - Dec. 20, 1998 - 11:49 AM PT
misterleo
I was right, you aren't coherent.
278. misterleo - Dec. 20, 1998 - 11:59 AM PT
ok, the point is this: the us attacked iraq with more missiles but fewer tonnes of explosives....comparing this attack to the gulf war is like comparing D-Day to all of World War Two....that point may seem obvious outside the gulf, but folks here are taking the "more missiles than the gulf war" stat to mean the attack was more devastating and more severe, which it certainly wasn't....so what difference does that make?...accuracy is not the strong suit of the media in the gulf, particularly the newspapers, but when CNN and others repeat this comparison over and over, it gives it more credit than it is worth...
more on the topic, what was the point of bombing for only four days and, as one message above points out, taking us back to late fall, 1997?....for one, it gives some credit to the us the next time it threatens the use of force....may seem silly and just a lot of posturing, but force gets used around here fairly frequently, and the use of force, whether most americans like it or not, is part of international relations...and no one plays more roles and gets involved in more issues on the international stage than the us....no credibility means diminished authority and power.....
sorry if I am still not so coherent....running into tomorrow here....
279. laflame - Dec. 20, 1998 - 1:13 PM PT
OK, let me get this straight. When there's no conflict, we can't find the weapons, but when there is a conflict, we can. But Saddamn can't.
Mister Leo, I have no doubt we could "get" the Devil, if we really wanted to. Preferably, a brown, or red Devil. Our Brutal Dictator attention span is kinda short, though. Somebody "got" Pinochet and we forgot to mention those U.S. murders he was implicated in.
Reality is not black and white, it's not linear. Control is the issue. The in-puts are ambiguous. None the less, there are new alliances forming in the Mid-East, and now we have a permanent position, a permanent excuse, and a new cover for a military build-up. All those "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and all.
Hey, we could cut off someone's oil supply and start a war with a real country. That'd get rid of some of that darned profit-shrinking over-capacity. And if it went to a ground war, well, we really don't need so large a pool of the soon to be-unemployed, whining for resourses, what with off-shore production and all.
We could certainly use some relief. I mean, earnings are headed for the toilet for the foreseeable future unless someone comes up with something. And then, the American people will finally notice the difference between the old "defined benefit" retirement plans, and the new, IMPROVED, "defined contribution plans". And in the words of our beloved, dead President, Richard Nixon, "That, would be bad."
Think of the devastation to brokers, if such a thing should happen, for goodness sake. And them counting on the privatization of Social Security to secure their golden years.
280. cartman69 - Dec. 20, 1998 - 9:50 PM PT
Operation "Desert Weasel" will likely see the exact same result that bombing the Sudanese aspirin factory and some Afghan caves had -- nothing! Except, of course, a handy distraction and a waste of money.
Let's see, between this and Sudan, that's close to half a billion dollars, with no tangible result. Clinton, with his supposed high intelligence, can't come up with a more constructive use for this money?
Best of all, though our unstated goal is the ouster (or death) of Saddam, we have no plan wrt what sort of person would succeeed him. Something like "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss", except one we can control. Better yet, maybe we can find some fundamentalists of the Taliban stripe to take over; they've done such a fine job in Afghanistan.
281. RustlerPike - Dec. 21, 1998 - 4:34 AM PT
The Israelis apparently are planning a secret mission of their own in Iraq, to be codenamed "Desert Lox"
282. gravel - Dec. 21, 1998 - 5:02 AM PT
RustlerPike:
You guys do seem to be producing a high number of brilliant strategists, though perhaps your strategists just get more chances to shine. I've been trying to recall the name of the guy who carried out the raid on Entebbe. Because of another posting, I recall that the nickname of his scond in command was Gabby--though that was from a TV movie and I'm not sure the character was based on one individual.
The US didn't bomb Iraq because of oil prices, and I can't see how causing Iraqi deaths would in any way ensure voluntary free flows of oil. The US didn't, in view of what it might have done, attack Iraq with a view to great destruction. Perhaps the answer to what the attack accomplished is so subtle, so a part of a larger strategy, that we can't yet see it. That doesn't necessarily detract from what it might be.
Israel told Clinton to reduce the amount of aid the US would give them this year, right? How will the difference, upon which Israel must be depending, be made up? I rather like the Desert Lox suggestion.
283. laflame - Dec. 21, 1998 - 5:21 AM PT
Gravel, the point would be that a "bad" Iraq would insure NO free flow of oil, maybe saving Mexico and other trading partners asses.
But it's not really oil as much as geo-political positioning. And who knows what else.
It was obvious in Nov. that UNSCOM would not be satisfied, and from the tone of comments at present I would think we could be seeing more bombs, sooner than later.
284. RustlerPike - Dec. 21, 1998 - 6:42 AM PT
Grav:
There were a lot of people involved in planning and executing Entebbe. The guy who led the troops on the ground was Yoni Netanyahu, Benjamin's elder brother.
285. Wombat - Dec. 21, 1998 - 7:04 AM PT
According to Wexx, life in the developed world is one big media con, a (whatever the name of that Jim Carrey flick where he lived a life totally controlled by the media) "happyville" or whatever writ large. Wexx literally never has anything original to say. I nominate Wexx for the intellectually shallowest poster in the Fray.
FYI, Wexx, Richard Haass is unlikely to say much good about the Clinton Administration's "policy" in the Middle East, given that he was one of the architects of the Bush Administration's fabulously successful one.
286. kastal - Dec. 21, 1998 - 10:12 AM PT
Maybe Saddam Hussien should step down from his post.In order to avoid facing disaster that is caused by U.S. bombing combined with the second graded British military forces whom wanted to show off to the world they are as well powerful as U.S. Maybe Saddam Hussien should resign his job on account of showing love to his people inorder to persuade UN to lift the long time embargo which was proposed by U.S. Why can't he see the American President doesn't like him? The American wanted to be the high-handed policeman of the world.They think they can rule the world one day,can't they? Can't you see Mr.Saddam ? The Russian and the Chinese top man are both very angry with the U.S. President.But what they can actually do?
Maybe Mr.Bill Clinton should talk to him (Mr.Saddam) with love instead of bombing him badly.Let the love do everything.Let the people of Iraq live in peace. God help us.
287. Wombat - Dec. 21, 1998 - 11:14 AM PT
I am sure that Saddam loves the thousands of "his people" who he has tortured and killed.
288. cartman69 - Dec. 21, 1998 - 1:43 PM PT
God, I hope Kastal is being facetious/sarcastic/ironic in Message #286, but one never knows for sure in this forum.
Yes, perhaps words of reason will shine through to Hussein, and he can "let love rule". I'm off to Amazon right now to have some holiday music sent to Baghdad. "Can't you see, Saddam, it's not nice to terrorize and impoverish your own people, all in the name of some insane despotic goal?" He'll understand.
Of course, I *still* don't support the bombing, or the way it's been handled. The US gov't has absolutely no idea how to finish this thing up.
BTW, I like Pike's idea..."Desert Lox"...heh heh heh.
289. Ptoben - Dec. 21, 1998 - 8:48 PM PT
Anyone hear if we got a final dead heathen count? Nice thing about these kinda war's when the good christians get to heaven they won't see any of the heathens. Just like in nam.
290. cartman69 - Dec. 21, 1998 - 9:01 PM PT
Kill 'em all...let God sort 'em out.
291. Ptoben - Dec. 21, 1998 - 9:05 PM PT
god don't do that according to the christians. If you aren't one of them you don't have a god, at least not the right one.
292. cartman69 - Dec. 21, 1998 - 9:13 PM PT
Well, that's the key, isn't it? Whom among us (or them) has the "correct" god, that is. Because despite all the inclusive bullshit many religions preach ("we're all God's children", yada yada yada), most are actually quite *exclusive*. It's not as if there are seperate levels of heaven, depending on how close to the "true" faith one is. You're either in or out; it's an all-or-nothing proposition.
Me, I don't have to worry about that, 'cause I don't see how ANY of them could be "right". "Do unto others...". That should be enough to live by, as far as I'm concerned.
293. Ptoben - Dec. 21, 1998 - 9:31 PM PT
As an atheist I can go along with that. By the way you buy Fallwell's new video? It's about the Y2K problem as if that loonie new anything about it. Seems JC is on his way back and WOW FOLKS IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD AGAIN
294. cartman69 - Dec. 21, 1998 - 10:04 PM PT
I hadn't heard about that one, but I'm not surprised. I guess Rev. Jerry's milked the flock on the Vince Foster conspiracy. Time to move on to more eschatological themes, which are his province after all. I'm quite sure Falwell's knowledge of computers involves swapping porn pix with Swaggart, and that's about it.
But that's the beauty of religion. It doesn't have to hew to the laws of logic and reason, like the real world. It is written, so it must be true. It doesn't have to be proven, or even make sense. If you like to relax after work with a beer and a joint, you go to hell. If you like having sex, but are not ready to tie yourself to one person for the rest of your life, God will smite you.
I listened to that shit till I was about 9 or 10, and decided that life would probably be far more enjoyable if I wasn't looking over my shoulder all the time, and used my money and time to make *my* life better. But hey, that's me.
295. Ptoben - Dec. 21, 1998 - 10:23 PM PT
CARTMAN a kindered spirit. I noticed the BS at about the same year of age. Raised a mormon I managed to get my hands on a Mark Twain book. Agreed right away about doubt that old Joe Smith could stay awake while transcribing those booring plates. Then we have old bring-em Young. He was a piece of work.
296. Jonesatlaw - Dec. 22, 1998 - 9:38 AM PT
Jerry Falwell is seeking to immnitize the eschaton?
297. thomasd - Dec. 22, 1998 - 6:35 PM PT
Re. 280 -
Wrong. It isn't that there will be no effect. It's now quite likely that Iraq will not allow UN inspections at all, for at least some period of time. Then, there's this discouraging result of the WH Wag the Dog:
"Russia premier approaches India, China on strategic plans By Reuters, 12/22/98
MOSCOW - Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov called yesterday for a strategic triangle with India and China, after Russia's bitter criticism of the four-day US and
British blitz of Iraq.
Primakov made clear that Russia would not back down from its condemnation of the strikes, and that it would also condemn any future offensive against Baghdad.
''We will never change our position. We are very negative about the use of force bypassing the Security Council,'' Primakov said in New Delhi.
He said Russia, China and India should form a ''strategic triangle'' as a counterweight to US influence in the world.
The decision by the United States and Britain to launch air raids without seeking approval from the UN Security Council infuriated Russia, which jealously guards its
position as a permanent Security Council member.
After the bombing ended on Saturday, President Boris N. Yeltsin said common sense had prevailed but added that a profound review of international relations was
now necessary.
Russia recalled its ambassadors to London and Washington for consultations as a sign of protest last week."
298. jexster - Dec. 22, 1998 - 8:38 PM PT
From the BBC:
The United States has condemned a sarcastic message
about the Holy month of Ramadan scrawled on a bomb
destined for Iraq.
The offending inscription read: "Here's a Ramadan
present from Chad Rickenberg."
299. envision - Dec. 23, 1998 - 4:03 PM PT
Hey, Jex. This is the first PC war. It's okay to kill Iraqi people, just don't insult them while it's happening.
300. Ptoben - Dec. 23, 1998 - 6:30 PM PT
I still haven't seen the official dead heathen count. Good thing they are heathen's and going to hell, because Falwell and God are busy on this Y2K problem. Wonder if God or Jerry came up with the 28 dollar price on the video?