The US, The UN and Iraq

and we do want them found, if they're there.

perception

Quickly, as I head out door...

I understand how someone in the military might feel this way. But it can't be the way our laws get written - how does one discern between valid dissent and traitorous speech? Saying the same words as an enemy spokesman says? To suggest the such people 'allow themselves to be used by the enemy' is to color their speech acts in a very particular way, suggesting they are agents, if unknowing, for the enemy. But there is no way to constrain free speech of this sort without doing great damage to freedom. It's just one of the ironies of democracy.

perception-poets die, metaphysics kills.

I have difficulty accepting that as an answer to my question----for clarification please provide an explanation and the logic behind it.

I saw Garafalo the other day as well and it was pretty apparent that she had no clue why she opposed any war. She could just barely find Iraq on a map and was totally unaware of what has been going on in Iraq over the last 30 years. She was under the impression that Saddam had come into power through open elections and thought "Kurds" and "Republican Guards" were one in the same. (hardly a minor snafu thre..)

She says that she's acting as a "citizen" but she, like others, are having little qualm with using their "star" identity to attract followers and get their message out. I have no problem with her speaking what she thinks but if she doesn't recognize that being a celebrity DOES make a difference in how a person's words are perceived then she's totally clueless.

The problem of locating mobile missle launchers is precisely that they are mobile. They can be hidden away in any space, building, cave, tunnel, or tent large enough to accommodate a truck-and-trailer rig, which, after all, is essentially what a mobile missle launcher is. When the user wishes to deploy the missle, it may be but a matter of moments between "Unmasking" the asset and its actual firing. The guidance system can be programmed in advance, while the missle is well out of observation, and if the missle is transported a short distance to a pre-surveyed launching position after having had its target set, erecting the missle's launch rail, spinning up the guidance gyroscopes, and energizing the ignition system for the rocket motors is a job accomplished in not much more time than it takes to describe. A bright flash, a loud "Bang", a cloud of smoke and dust, a "whooshing" noise and the puppy is on its way. The "Launch Signature" of course will likely attract the attention of numerous sensors, and result in the dispatch of Air Assetts to attack the scene. Depending on Command-And Control efficiency and the distribution and readiness status of those Air Assetts, a counter strike might occur anywhere from nearly instantaneously to several minutes or more following the launch of the missle. It may be assumed Anti-Missle Assetts have been and will further be deployed to protect logical key targets. Assumed Missle Track Corridors leading to likely targets are sure to have been determined and likely have been accorded some Missle Interdiction capability.

It will be no surprise if the Iraqis manage to get a few rockets off. Few if any of the launch facilities will survive their first use. A significant portion of missles successfully launched will either fail due to internal system faults or be destroyed or deflected by US/UN/Israeli Missle Defense Systems. The probability is that some, perhaps even most, but not all missles launched will fail to reach their targets. There is the possibility the payload of any successful missle may be a WMD. There is the certainty of absolutely horrific retaliation if such becomes the case.

Our military is without equal. However, it is made up wholly of human-designed/human-operated components. The potential for fault, error, or failure is a given with any human endeavor. Too, our military can be fairly confidently relied upon to do precisely as it is directed by its civilian masterts.

Properly defining the mission and thoroughly enabling its achievement would be the province of those who run those who command the military. Equally distasteful are the prospects that the military be given the wrong mission or be denied the assetts and lattitude required to accomplish the assigned mission, right or wrong.


At present, I believe war yet may be avoided, though its avoidance appears a matter of decreasing probability. Uneasy as I am with the prospect of war, I currently feel comfortable with the abilities and intentions of "Our Leaders". There are factors beyond "OIL" ... oil is a factor, a major one, but I see it as a factor of critical importance to the World Economy and to World Stability. Iraq's production channelled into the market through a variety of legitimate private-sector commercial petroleum producers is of economic and diplomatic benefit to all concerned ... and we are ALL concerned. I believe Bush The Younger and his team see the issue in the same light.


Human rights and representative self-government are factors. Regional Security and Stability, along with WMDs, are factors. Collusion with elements of Global Terrorism is a multi-faceted factor. In common with most wars, there are a multitude of factors, rendering things somewhat less clearcut than can be summed up in any generalization. As I type this, Colin Powell is about to deliver a State Department briefing regarding the Iraqi disclosure documents, which, unsurprisingly, seem to have been inadequate. The rhetoric is certain to ratchet up. Iraq will no doubt offer "Clarification and Elaboration", accusations and threats will fly back and forth. Western Intelligence will be declassified and released to further evidence Iraqi non-compliance.


The next critical date is January 27, the day the UN is to release the conclusion it has drawn from the reports of the inspectors. The President's Annual State Of The Union Address is scheduled for the following evening.


OK ... gotta go, Powel is stepping to the podium. I'll be back.



timber

The poets (read that artists of whatever medium) are out the back door smokin' pot as you say, it was most likely the poetry of the likes of Solzhenitsyn with his Gulag that opened our eyes to the horrors of the Soviets rather than the metaphysics of Reagan with his "empire of evil". Most likely it was Miller's "The Crucible" that gave us the awareness of the horrors of Sen. Joe McCarthy and his witch (communist) burnings. It was Leonardo Da Vinci as a heretic that brought us the poetry in conflict with the metaphysics of the Church. Galileo was the poet who was imprisoned for life for his "ideas" that countered the metaphysic of his time. But now we have a new metaphysic and it is the "axis of evil". As it is vague and meaningless as any ideology, it still has the power to send men to their death. Weapons of Mass Destruction seems to be the buzzword but what, perchance meaning does it hold? Is this somehow different than the WMD such as mustard gas used in WWI, or perhaps the Napalm of Viet Nam? These are all valid questions and need/should be addressed but not via a vision, an ideology so carelessly tossed about has it has been this past year. The questions need to include terrorism, what it is, who it is, what can be do about it, and why it is. Like I said the poet dies but the metaphysic kills.

NAPALM. What a horror.

"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it."
(Remark to Gen. James Longstreet at the Battle of Fredericksburg, December 13, 1862) --- Robert E. Lee quote on war

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." --Goering at the Nuremberg Trials; Hermann Goering's Quote On War And The People

Einstein once had a good quote on war and peace, " I don't know what kind of weapons will be used in the third world war, assuming there will be a third world war. But I can tell you what the fourth world war will be fought with --- stone clubs."

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense,a theft from those who hunger and are not fed" 1953 - former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, former generalAs quoted in Economics, Paul A. Samuelson, William D. Nordhaus13th Edition, 1989. New York: McGraw Hill

"A 'war on terrorism' cannot be won, unless the causes of terrorism are eradicated - by making the world a place free of grievances" - Dame Stella Rimington Head of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)

"To fight terrorism you have to fight the root causes of injustice- poverty, disease, joblessness. Nobody can live without hope" - Dr Thoraya Obaid

"War: It makes the victor stupid,
the vanquished malignant"
Nietzsche - "Human, All-Too-Human" [444]

They can read the license plate only if they know where it is. That's the problem. If the launchers observe good security, only move when the satellites are not overhead, they are going to be hard to find.

Tantor

What leads me to this conclusion is Saddam's launching of Scud missiles at Israel, an innocent bystander, during the Gulf War. Any strike against Israel is well received in the Arab world. Throwing weapons at Israel is almost a get out of jail free card for Saddam. No matter how wrong his cause, the Arabs are willing to give him some slack if he is destroying Israel.

I don't believe Saddam is constrained by anything but the available weapons at hand. He had Scuds, so he used Scuds against Israel. If he had a nuke, he'd use that. Saddam wants to be the leader of the Arab world, the new Saladdin. Destroying Israel would be a step toward accomplishing that.




While the attack on the WTC was horrific, the cold fact is that it has not affected America much. The loss of the WTC is a pinprick on the body of America.

What exactly in your world has changed because of Sep 11? Is there anything you can no longer do in your daily life? What constraints have been placed upon you? I don't really see any in my life. I was intrigued to note that in the days after Sep 11, my world pretty much went on as usual. I have suffered no loss of liberties. I don't know anyone who has. My life has not been degraded in any way by the terrorists.



Yes, it's true that saying Arabs respect only force and are not fond of reason does insult them. It's an accurate comment. I'm comfortable stating the plain truth. There are cultures which are inferior to ours. The Arab Muslims are a prime example of such an inferior culture.

My observation that Arabs respect force alone is a comment I have read many times from knowledgeable Mideast hands. It recurs many times in first person accounts of the Mideast over centuries. It is confirmed by events. Saddam Hussein is a perfect example. Do you think the UN inspectors would be in Iraq were it not for the American threat of war? Do you think there is any way to reason with Saddam?

If you are interested in seeing the level of rational discourse in the Arab media, I invite you to read the MEMRI website, which translates Arabic media into English. Sound arguments are rare. Irrational rhetoric is the norm.

For an interesting practical example of the difference between Arab and American cultures, you might try reading an article in the Atlantic a year or so ago about the investigation of the Egypt Air jumbo jet that crashed into the North Atlantic. The Americans found that the pilot had deliberately turned the engines off and gave the control inputs that crashed the jet. The Egyptians could not accept that. They tried everything but accepting the truth. Saving face was more important than the truth.

Tantor

Why didn't he use his WOMDs in the Scud warheads last time around?

You are always saying that his use of the weapons is only contingient on the availability of the weapon to him but that doesn't make sense and doesn't fit his profile.

Yes he's a fool who likes to play with the big boy's toys but availability is certainly not the criteria. He does what he thinks he can get away with, not what his arsenal dictates.

The next point I'd like to bring up is how ludicrous your example is when you are trying to convince us that Arabs are not reasonable.

OF COURSE it took force to get inspectors in there and it would take even more force to get us to relinquish our nukes and allow inspections. We'd have to have our arms twisted to allow foreign troops on our soil too. This is a shoddy example to use to defend your racist (and thus far unsubstantiated) position.

Just as a minor point in this overall discussion here. There have been a few mentions about inspections of US nuclear, chemical and/or biological weapons so far.

US facilities ARE inspected. The International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC - an arm of the UN) DOES conduct inspections of our nuclear facilities and weapons. This was signed on to as a part of the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty. The Soviets/Russians also inspect(ed) our facilites as a part of the START agreements.

Our chemical and biological facilities are also inspected by the UN as a part of the UN Chemical Weapons treaties. The UN knows what we have for WOMD and where they are kept, just as it does for all of the other signatories of those treaties. This is how books like "Jane Defense Almanac" get such accurate info and publish it.

Saddam tried to do exactly that. Our troops found WMDs on the tarmac of Iraqi air bases, waiting to be loaded onto the jets. We don't know why they weren't. It appears that the order was given, the weapons in many cases deployed, but the order not carried out.



We have in fact relinquished many of our nukes. We have invited the Soviets to inspect as we destroyed various missiles and bombers, leaving the pieces out in broad view so that they could be viewed by satellites. Surely you have seen photos in the media of this happenning. For example, we have chopped up much of our B-52 fleet at Davis Monthan AFB, the boneyard for AF aircraft.

We do in fact host a large contingent of Germans at Holloman AFB, NM. It is where all their pilots train to fly F-4s. Nobody twisted our arm to make it happen. They are foreign troops. They are on our soil. Questions?

Look up the difference between race and culture, Craven. There is one, you know. Arabs who grow up in our culture adopt our reliance on reason while those who grow up in the Mideast do not. It is not race at issue, but culture. That is why I said our culture is superior to theirs, which is true, rather than our race is superior to theirs, which is not true.

Resorting to cheap race baiting should be beneath you, Craven. Raise your game.

Tantor

That's about as bigoted a statement I have ever heard. Your assumption that the American culture is superior is a biased one at best. Not all Muslims or Arabs who live in the Middle East are no more extremists than some Americans I know. "Reliance on reason?" What hogwash! c.i.

It is a statement of fact. I suspect that you are too devoted to political correctness to bear the truth plainly spoken.

However, since you think my assertion is simple bigotry, it should be child's play for you to show in detail how the Arab Muslim civilization is our equal. For example, how many Arab Muslims have landed on the moon? What diseases have they cured? What is their standard of living? What is their average education? Are their political systems equal to ours? What is their average life expectancy? How about that Arab system of education?

Please feel free to use any aspect of Arab Muslim civilization that you believe is the equal of Western Civilization and lay it here. If you find superior aspects, by all means state them.

You might stop and wonder why our universities have so many Arab Muslim students. If their civilization is equal to ours, shouldn't they be studying at their own universities? If their civilization is equal to ours, why do Arab Muslims immigrate to the West instead of vice versa?

Just as a parting question for you to consider: Why do you think Bernard Lewis, the leading American scholar on Middle East affairs, titled his last book on Arab Muslim civilization "What Went Wrong?" If you read it, you will find a rather learned discourse on how Arab Muslim civilization became inferior to the West and the decisions made by the Arab Muslims that led to their sad state.

Looking forward to your response.

Tantor

There are some very good posts here.

perception...over a year ago, on an abuzz thread, this Jane Fonda story came up and was tossed about, and was finally acknowledged by Helen of Troy and others to have serious credibility problems (I'm sorry, there is not a chance in hell I could locate that now).

fishin...on 'stars' talking...this is an aspect of TV culture which I loathe deeply. There is a very high probability that Princess Di, if alive, could influence public opinion on the Iraq question far far more than might Bernard Lewis...and there is no question who the media would put into the studio. To Garofalo's credit (in the piece I saw which lasted one minute or so) she spoke to precisely that point and described herself as 'inarticulate'. I too think there is a civic responsibility for each of us speaking in a public forum to do our homework and be careful.

timber...a typically detailed, level-headed, and reasoned post...would you consider marrying my spinster sister?

dyslexia...a lovely explication of the the problems from those damned poets.

bill...I've always love that Einstein quote...thank you for reminding me

tantor, Your tendency to paint everybody in any culture with the same brush makes you a bigot. Believe it or not, there are some in the Middle East culture I would prefer to have as my friend and neighbor over many Americans. It's wrong to attack the whole culture. You look at the forest, and forget about the trees. Each individual's character is what's important, irregardless of the culture in which they live. c.i.

Tantor

You really ought to put in for pope, having the infallibility and pontificating thing down so well. Let's see some links for your claims of things found and things said.

You have the convenient notion that these people are getting testy with you because you are jarring their fixed, politically correct ideas. It is, and you ought to listen up here, delusory.

Oh, I dunno ... can you forward a picture of her Bass Boat?



timber