Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

OT: Our son the deserter

Started by George Herbert Walker · · Last activity · 282 posts · 5,856 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
12 September 2004
Last activity
1 October 2004
Original author
George Herbert Walker
Posts
282
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
5,856
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 241–260 of 282
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Mark Hickey said:
    B.B. said:

    Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The majority of the weapons (and the vast majority) were smart bombs,
    targeting individual buildings.

    Machine guns and rifles do not fire smart bombs. Tanks do not fire
    smart bombs. The "cluster" parts of cluster bombs are not smart bombs.
    Mortars are not smart bombs. The rockets fired form a helicopter into a
    crowded street a few days ago aren't smart bombs either.

    Weapons directly aimed in short proximity by a human are "smart"
    weapons in any meaningful analysis (since their trajectory and target
    aren't subject to the same kind of variation that bombs dropped from
    an aircraft are).

    Well, you've addressed rifles. Now try the other stuff.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Smart bombs make up only a small fraction of the armament deployed in
    Iraq and I've heard nothing bout their use since the initial invasion.

    I'm getting the impression you don't watch the news much.

    I get lots of impressions about you as well, but I keep them to
    myself as they're merely impressions and tossing them around won't add
    anything to the discussion.
    Perhaps you can steer me to a news source documenting our pervasive
    use of smart weaponry?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The US is not actively preventing civilian casualties--regardless of
    smart bombs.

    I'll make it easy (hah) for you... simply give us examples of similar
    military operations over such a huge area, and over such a large
    military, that resulted in fewer civilian casualties. That should be
    easy, right?

    More irrelevant than easy, really. Is there actually a "minimum
    civilian casualties" mark we need to pass before it's justified to start
    counting them? Waitaminute, if we don't count them how will we know
    we've passed the mark?
    But in any event, a body count does not define whether or not we're
    protecting civilians. Fist, I'm coming from the viewpoint that this war
    is unjust, so any civilian casualties are excessive. But to take a more
    neutral position, civilian casualties have been on the rise for the last
    few months and all Bush has said on the subject is that we're winning,
    democracy is spreading, and some other such BS.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>> I don't like that; are you trying to argue a point or put on a show?
    >>
    >>I'm trying to avoid re-re-re-re-rehashing a non-disputed point.
    >
    > What non-disputed point is that? That the US is currently dropping
    >bombs in cities? That we occasionally fire into crowds? Or that we
    >don't even bother to count how many of these people we're killing?

    Sigh... so many posts, so little time.

    Wow, you've really won me over with that brilliant method of debate.
    I guess I was wrong after all and Bush was 100% correct when he decided
    to invade Iraq to enforce a UN (irrelevant debate society) resolution
    after Saddam didn't allow the inspectors (who had to leave prior to the
    invasion) into Iraq and threatened the US (superpower) with his mighty
    military machine (camels) and his WMD (courtesy of Rumsfeld & Cheney)
    arsenal that he's currently hiding in his invisible jets (that's why
    Iraq appeared to have no air force during the war) and invisible
    terrorists training camps (so we can't find them). How on earth could I
    have thought otherwise? Don't even get me started on this great
    economy! (job outsourcing) I think I'll go out right now and spend the
    $8 I saved on taxes last year and really boost the economy some more!

    It's easy to see from the above (and the post I didn't reply fully to)
    that you can't stay focused, so rather than have yet another thread
    spin off down a dozen rabbit trails, I'd rather ride bike.

    What? Don't you want to stay the course?

    --
    B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail.net

  2. In article <[email hidden]>,

    John Forrest Tomlinson said:
    B.B. said:


    Wow, you've really won me over with that brilliant method of debate.
    I guess I was wrong after all and Bush was 100% correct when he decided
    to invade Iraq to enforce a UN (irrelevant debate society) resolution
    after Saddam didn't allow the inspectors (who had to leave prior to the
    invasion) into Iraq and threatened the US (superpower) with his mighty
    military machine (camels) and his WMD (courtesy of Rumsfeld & Cheney)
    arsenal that he's currently hiding in his invisible jets (that's why
    Iraq appeared to have no air force during the war) and invisible
    terrorists training camps (so we can't find them). How on earth could I
    have thought otherwise? Don't even get me started on this great
    economy! (job outsourcing) I think I'll go out right now and spend the
    $8 I saved on taxes last year and really boost the economy some more!

    Mission accomplished.

    We've turned the corner.

    And make no mistake: freedom is on the march!

    Bring 'em on!

    Smoke 'em out!

    Make the pie higher!

    --
    B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail.net

  3. Mark Hickey said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The majority of the weapons (and the vast majority) were smart
    bombs, targeting individual buildings.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Machine guns and rifles do not fire smart bombs. Tanks do not fire
    smart bombs. The "cluster" parts of cluster bombs are not smart
    bombs. Mortars are not smart bombs. The rockets fired form a
    helicopter into a crowded street a few days ago aren't smart bombs
    either.

    Quoted message said:

    Weapons directly aimed in short proximity by a human are "smart"
    weapons in any meaningful analysis (since their trajectory and
    target aren't subject to the same kind of variation that bombs
    dropped from an aircraft are).

    I see that you have never fired and automatic weapon as those used by
    US troops in Iraq. These are not used by sighting and squeezing the
    trigger, but rather are held at the hip on a sling and sprayed in the
    direction of interest. Shooting from the shoulder, as you apparently
    imagine, will knock the rifleman down. Only in the movies, do
    automatic weapons not kick the operator. They are NOT smart weapons!

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Smart bombs make up only a small fraction of the armament deployed
    in Iraq and I've heard nothing bout their use since the initial
    invasion.

    Quoted message said:

    I'm getting the impression you don't watch the news much.

    Lay off the imputation and address the issue. I see that you try to
    cover your tracks with these responses so no one can say you claimed
    there WERE in fat smart bombs in use at the present. It doesn't wash!

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The US is not actively preventing civilian casualties--regardless
    of smart bombs.

    Quoted message said:

    I'll make it easy (hah) for you... simply give us examples of
    similar military operations over such a huge area, and over such a
    large military, that resulted in fewer civilian casualties. That
    should be easy, right?

    For that to make any sense one needs to normalize that to interactions
    with military forces. As you see, this situation is not combat but a
    nation out of control where US soldiers are defending their presence
    rather than pursuing an enemy. It's like the "war" on terror. It
    doesn't work.

    Jobst Brandt
    [email hidden]

  4. Mark Hickey said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I think it would be cathartic for the region if UBL IS put on
    trial, and we make a point of giving him the full opportunity to
    defend himself. It would also serve as an object lesson to his
    followers if he DOES allow himself to be captured (which I think
    is unlikely)...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I think it would be cathartic for the region if George W. Bush IS
    put on trial, and we make a point of giving him the full
    opportunity to defend himself. It would also serve as an object
    lesson to his followers if he DOES allow himself to be subject to
    an international tribunal (which I think is unlikely).

    Quoted message said:

    So you're about half of the US openly supports a war criminal?

    Hold it. Not so fast. There has been no trial and no judgment and
    those who support GWB believe what he is telling them, so they are
    only complicit in ignorance of the real nature of this administration.

    Quoted message said:

    Come to think of it, I guess I should have said ~90%, given Kerry's
    testimony in the 70's...

    What testimony?

    Jobst Brandt
    [email hidden]

  5. Mark Hickey said:
    Tim McNamara said:
    Mark Hickey said:

    Jim Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:

    >Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> writes:
    >
    >> These are issues that should be handled properly - not in a
    >> hasty rush to judgement. Justice will be served - better the
    >> Iraqis see how it's supposed to work than satiate their desire
    >> for revenge with a quick mock trial.
    >
    >This is an interesting contrast to your statements in the thread
    >RE OBL. How do you reconcile the two?

    I don't care if it takes a while to find UBL guilty... or Saddam
    for that matter.

    Indeed, it is better for the viability of rule of law if that
    process is not rushed, and is instead thorough and dedicated to
    findings of fact. I suspect that in both cases, there is an
    abundance of reliable evidence to convict both. Hey, something we
    can agree on!

    I think it would be cathartic for the region if UBL IS put on trial,
    and we make a point of giving him the full opportunity to defend
    himself.

    I don't know if it would be cathartic or not. I think that the folks
    in the Middle East who do not support bin Laden or al Qaeda would
    approve of his trial and conviction. But stil, I think that ollowing
    the due process under rule of law is the crucial point in this.

    Quoted message said:

    It would also serve as an object lesson to his followers if he DOES
    allow himself to be captured (which I think is unlikely).

    Interestingly enough, his capture was reported in the Middle East in
    April but never confirmed. The story was apparently carried on
    Iranian media. I would assume that if true, the news would have
    leaked out by now! Unfortunately as far as his followers go, the
    object lesson would be that that should follow him to martyrdom. The
    death penalty would be cathartic for many Americans, but ill advised
    in the big picture.

    Quoted message said:

    But yeah, I don't think even OJ's legal team could get him off.

    Probably not. OJ never made videotapes ordering the death of his
    wife, nor boasting about it afterwards. The evidence seems much
    stronger in the case of bin Laden, eh?

  6. Mark Hickey said:
    Tom Sherman said:
    Mark Hickey said:

    ... I think it would be cathartic for the region if UBL IS put on
    trial, and we make a point of giving him the full opportunity to
    defend himself. It would also serve as an object lesson to his
    followers if he DOES allow himself to be captured (which I think
    is unlikely)....

    I think it would be cathartic for the region if George W. Bush IS
    put on trial, and we make a point of giving him the full opportunity
    to defend himself. It would also serve as an object lesson to his
    followers if he DOES allow himself to be subject to an international
    tribunal (which I think is unlikely).

    So you're about half of the US openly supports a war criminal?

    Ehhhh.... what? <scratches head>

    Quoted message said:

    Come to think of it, I guess I should have said ~90%, given Kerry's
    testimony in the 70's...

    Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the
    $695 ti frame

  7. Tim McNamara said:
    Mark Hickey said:

    Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I think it would be cathartic for the region if George W. Bush IS
    put on trial, and we make a point of giving him the full opportunity
    to defend himself. It would also serve as an object lesson to his
    followers if he DOES allow himself to be subject to an international
    tribunal (which I think is unlikely).

    So you're about half of the US openly supports a war criminal?

    Ehhhh.... what? <scratches head>

    He left out the word "saying". (After you're and before about.) Not too
    terribly hard to figure out.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Come to think of it, I guess I should have said ~90%, given Kerry's
    testimony in the 70's...

    Let that one go, eh. Don't blame you.

    Bill "butt-in-ski" S.

  8. B.B. said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Mark Hickey said:
    B.B. said:

    Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    >The majority of the weapons (and the vast majority) were smart bombs,
    >targeting individual buildings.

    Machine guns and rifles do not fire smart bombs. Tanks do not fire
    smart bombs. The "cluster" parts of cluster bombs are not smart bombs.
    Mortars are not smart bombs. The rockets fired form a helicopter into a
    crowded street a few days ago aren't smart bombs either.

    Weapons directly aimed in short proximity by a human are "smart"
    weapons in any meaningful analysis (since their trajectory and target
    aren't subject to the same kind of variation that bombs dropped from
    an aircraft are).

    Well, you've addressed rifles. Now try the other stuff.

    Cluster bombs aren't used in urban areas, and mortars have very little
    use in that environment as well. The rockets fired from a helicopter
    are normally quite accurate (though obviously not as accurate as a
    rifle).

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Smart bombs make up only a small fraction of the armament deployed in
    Iraq and I've heard nothing bout their use since the initial invasion.

    I'm getting the impression you don't watch the news much.

    I get lots of impressions about you as well, but I keep them to
    myself as they're merely impressions and tossing them around won't add
    anything to the discussion.
    Perhaps you can steer me to a news source documenting our pervasive
    use of smart weaponry?

    There are almost daily reports of insurgent hangouts being destroyed
    with laser-guided bombs. It's really been quite common - hardly
    "nothing since the initial invasion".

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The US is not actively preventing civilian casualties--regardless of
    smart bombs.

    I'll make it easy (hah) for you... simply give us examples of similar
    military operations over such a huge area, and over such a large
    military, that resulted in fewer civilian casualties. That should be
    easy, right?

    More irrelevant than easy, really. Is there actually a "minimum
    civilian casualties" mark we need to pass before it's justified to start
    counting them? Waitaminute, if we don't count them how will we know
    we've passed the mark?
    But in any event, a body count does not define whether or not we're
    protecting civilians. Fist, I'm coming from the viewpoint that this war
    is unjust, so any civilian casualties are excessive. But to take a more
    neutral position, civilian casualties have been on the rise for the last
    few months and all Bush has said on the subject is that we're winning,
    democracy is spreading, and some other such BS.

    The vast majority of the innocent Iraqis being killed aren't being
    killed by US soldiers, but by other Iraqis and foreigners. And I have
    to ask - did you care about the Iraqis when Saddam was offing them at
    the rate of at least 10,000 a year?

    But I need to point out you didn't answer my question. I'll take that
    to mean you realize that, contrary to your assertion, the US has been
    more successful in minimizing civilian deaths than in any war in
    history.

    Mark Hickey
    Habanero Cycles
    http://www.habcycles.com
    Home of the $695 ti frame

  9. On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:28:33 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


    I'll take that
    to mean you realize that, contrary to your assertion, the US has been
    more successful in minimizing civilian deaths than in any war in
    history.

    Gee, there you go again with the relativism over right and wrong. I
    thought that was something only liberals did.

    JT

    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************

  10. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Mark Hickey said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>The majority of the weapons (and the vast majority) were smart bombs,
    >>targeting individual buildings.
    >
    > Machine guns and rifles do not fire smart bombs. Tanks do not fire
    >smart bombs. The "cluster" parts of cluster bombs are not smart bombs.
    >Mortars are not smart bombs. The rockets fired form a helicopter into a
    >crowded street a few days ago aren't smart bombs either.

    Weapons directly aimed in short proximity by a human are "smart"
    weapons in any meaningful analysis (since their trajectory and target
    aren't subject to the same kind of variation that bombs dropped from
    an aircraft are).

    Well, you've addressed rifles. Now try the other stuff.

    Cluster bombs aren't used in urban areas, and mortars have very little
    use in that environment as well. The rockets fired from a helicopter
    are normally quite accurate (though obviously not as accurate as a
    rifle).

    "very little use" != "not used"
    Mortars in cities lead to civilian casualties. What is being done to
    reduce the usage of these?
    Cluster bombs in cities: http://www.mcc.org/clusterbomb/iraq/ follow
    links off from that site. Besides, when did the qualification of "used
    in urban areas" come into the conversation? You used an unqualified
    assertion that: "The majority of the weapons (and the vast majority)
    were smart bombs, targeting individual buildings." Are these weapons as
    smart as you say they are or not?
    As an aside, cluster bombs are really just a quick way to set up mine
    fields. A fact well documented all over the place is that mines do
    little to stop enemy military but do quite a lot of damage to civilians
    that enter the area.
    It's good to know rockets are normally quite accurate, but they're
    still rockets and when they hit they might as well be pipe bombs for all
    the shrapnel that goes off. The shrapnel isn't "smart bombs" either.
    So we can very accurately place rockets within crowds--they're still
    rockets within crowds.
    Come to think of it, when we drop these smart bombs on buildings, do
    the buildings fall safely or do they have a habit of falling on nearby
    civilians? A bomb isn't exactly a controlled demolition unless they've
    gotten REALLY smart.
    Oh, and as Jobst pointed out, the rifles aren't terribly accurate
    either. Might be more humane to use pipe bombs.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Smart bombs make up only a small fraction of the armament deployed in
    >Iraq and I've heard nothing bout their use since the initial invasion.

    I'm getting the impression you don't watch the news much.

    I get lots of impressions about you as well, but I keep them to
    myself as they're merely impressions and tossing them around won't add
    anything to the discussion.
    Perhaps you can steer me to a news source documenting our pervasive
    use of smart weaponry?

    There are almost daily reports of insurgent hangouts being destroyed
    with laser-guided bombs. It's really been quite common - hardly
    "nothing since the initial invasion".

    Perhaps you can steer me to a news source documenting our pervasive
    use of smart weaponry?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > The US is not actively preventing civilian casualties--regardless of
    >smart bombs.

    I'll make it easy (hah) for you... simply give us examples of similar
    military operations over such a huge area, and over such a large
    military, that resulted in fewer civilian casualties. That should be
    easy, right?

    More irrelevant than easy, really. Is there actually a "minimum
    civilian casualties" mark we need to pass before it's justified to start
    counting them? Waitaminute, if we don't count them how will we know
    we've passed the mark?
    But in any event, a body count does not define whether or not we're
    protecting civilians. Fist, I'm coming from the viewpoint that this war
    is unjust, so any civilian casualties are excessive. But to take a more
    neutral position, civilian casualties have been on the rise for the last
    few months and all Bush has said on the subject is that we're winning,
    democracy is spreading, and some other such BS.

    The vast majority of the innocent Iraqis being killed aren't being
    killed by US soldiers, but by other Iraqis and foreigners. And I have
    to ask - did you care about the Iraqis when Saddam was offing them at
    the rate of at least 10,000 a year?

    And I have to ask: what does it have to do with the discussion?
    Yes, I did care back then.
    We run Iraq now, so we're responsible for the death and mayhem taking
    place there, regardless of who does it.
    Your argument that "we didn't do it" is kind of like Jeb arguing that
    he doesn't have to clean up anything in Florida because he didn't make
    all that mess--it was those hurricanes.

    Quoted message said:

    But I need to point out you didn't answer my question. I'll take that
    to mean you realize that, contrary to your assertion, the US has been
    more successful in minimizing civilian deaths than in any war in
    history.

    Hmm, seems a rather underhanded way of accusing me of lying.
    Your question was unrelated to the discussion. You seem to abhor
    topic-drift, so I'm keeping it to a minimum. Have you changed your mind
    and decided topic-drift is OK?
    In any event, the body count is on the rise. Are you suggesting that
    I sit back and wait for it to escalate to the horrible levels seen on
    other wars before complaining about it? I'd rather complain now, before
    so many people die.
    But I need to point out you didn't answer half of article:
    <[email hidden]>. I'll
    take that to mean you realize that, contrary to your assertion, Bush is
    a horrible president.
    PKB.

    --
    B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail.net

  11. Quoted message said:
    Mark Hickey said:

    Weapons directly aimed in short proximity by a human are "smart"
    weapons in any meaningful analysis (since their trajectory and
    target aren't subject to the same kind of variation that bombs
    dropped from an aircraft are).

    I see that you have never fired and automatic weapon as those used by
    US troops in Iraq. These are not used by sighting and squeezing the
    trigger, but rather are held at the hip on a sling and sprayed in the
    direction of interest. Shooting from the shoulder, as you apparently
    imagine, will knock the rifleman down. Only in the movies, do
    automatic weapons not kick the operator. They are NOT smart weapons!

    I think perhaps you've been the one watching movies (your Governor
    usually shoots the way you describe). In all the footage I've seen
    from Iraq, I don't recall anyone "John Wayning" with an automatic
    weapon. If indeed a weapon does have a significant kick (particularly
    one that would "knock down" the soldier firing it), that's the very
    worst possible way to fire, since you're trying to stabilize it at
    arm's length, and have nothing at all to brace the weapon against.
    I've fired plenty of rifles and shotguns (including an AK-47 on full
    auto), and have not once been "knocked down" or even moved by the
    recoil.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Smart bombs make up only a small fraction of the armament deployed
    in Iraq and I've heard nothing bout their use since the initial
    invasion.

    Quoted message said:

    I'm getting the impression you don't watch the news much.

    Lay off the imputation and address the issue. I see that you try to
    cover your tracks with these responses so no one can say you claimed
    there WERE in fat smart bombs in use at the present. It doesn't wash!

    Jobst, it's almost impossible to watch the news these days and NOT see
    reports of smart bombs being used - that's my point... don't read
    anything more into it than that. Smart bombs are being used with
    great effectiveness to destroy insurgent hideouts. The good news is
    that it's the Iraqis who are giving the coalition troops the info on
    where to hit and when.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The US is not actively preventing civilian casualties--regardless
    of smart bombs.

    Quoted message said:

    I'll make it easy (hah) for you... simply give us examples of
    similar military operations over such a huge area, and over such a
    large military, that resulted in fewer civilian casualties. That
    should be easy, right?

    For that to make any sense one needs to normalize that to interactions
    with military forces. As you see, this situation is not combat but a
    nation out of control where US soldiers are defending their presence
    rather than pursuing an enemy. It's like the "war" on terror. It
    doesn't work.

    It's a policing action now - not unlike many others we've been
    involved in.

    But this discussion has spiraled far, far away from the original
    point. That being, the US has spent a lot of money to minimize
    civilian deaths. That point being (I think) clearly made, it's time
    to move on to something (anything) more interesting.

    Mark Hickey
    Habanero Cycles
    http://www.habcycles.com
    Home of the $695 ti frame

  12. Quoted message said:
    Mark Hickey said:
    Quoted message said:

    > I think it would be cathartic for the region if UBL IS put on
    > trial, and we make a point of giving him the full opportunity to
    > defend himself. It would also serve as an object lesson to his
    > followers if he DOES allow himself to be captured (which I think
    > is unlikely)...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I think it would be cathartic for the region if George W. Bush IS
    put on trial, and we make a point of giving him the full
    opportunity to defend himself. It would also serve as an object
    lesson to his followers if he DOES allow himself to be subject to
    an international tribunal (which I think is unlikely).

    Quoted message said:

    So you're about half of the US openly supports a war criminal?

    Hold it. Not so fast. There has been no trial and no judgment and
    those who support GWB believe what he is telling them, so they are
    only complicit in ignorance of the real nature of this administration.

    OK, so it's half the US population supports a war criminal or are
    morons... right?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Come to think of it, I guess I should have said ~90%, given Kerry's
    testimony in the 70's...

    What testimony?

    Sigh.

    Mark Hickey
    Habanero Cycles
    http://www.habcycles.com
    Home of the $695 ti frame

  13. Tim McNamara said:

    Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> writes:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    It would also serve as an object lesson to his followers if he DOES
    allow himself to be captured (which I think is unlikely).

    Interestingly enough, his capture was reported in the Middle East in
    April but never confirmed. The story was apparently carried on
    Iranian media. I would assume that if true, the news would have
    leaked out by now! Unfortunately as far as his followers go, the
    object lesson would be that that should follow him to martyrdom. The
    death penalty would be cathartic for many Americans, but ill advised
    in the big picture.

    If he allows himself to be captured, you'd hope that his lack of
    resolve would register with his more extreme followers (that is, if
    the leader really believes what he tells us, he'd never have allowed
    himself to be captured).

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    But yeah, I don't think even OJ's legal team could get him off.

    Probably not. OJ never made videotapes ordering the death of his
    wife, nor boasting about it afterwards. The evidence seems much
    stronger in the case of bin Laden, eh?

    I'd much rather be prosecution in this case...

    Mark Hickey
    Habanero Cycles
    http://www.habcycles.com
    Home of the $695 ti frame

  14. Mark Hickey said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Weapons directly aimed in short proximity by a human are "smart"
    weapons in any meaningful analysis (since their trajectory and
    target aren't subject to the same kind of variation that bombs
    dropped from an aircraft are).

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I see that you have never fired and automatic weapon as those used
    by US troops in Iraq. These are not used by sighting and squeezing
    the trigger, but rather are held at the hip on a sling and sprayed
    in the direction of interest. Shooting from the shoulder, as you
    apparently imagine, will knock the rifleman down. Only in the
    movies, do automatic weapons not kick the operator. They are NOT
    smart weapons!

    Quoted message said:

    I think perhaps you've been the one watching movies (your Governor
    usually shoots the way you describe). In all the footage I've seen
    from Iraq, I don't recall anyone "John Wayning" with an automatic
    weapon. If indeed a weapon does have a significant kick
    (particularly one that would "knock down" the soldier firing it),
    that's the very worst possible way to fire, since you're trying to
    stabilize it at arm's length, and have nothing at all to brace the
    weapon against. I've fired plenty of rifles and shotguns (including
    an AK-47 on full auto), and have not once been "knocked down" or
    even moved by the recoil.

    There is no way of shooting selectively at a target with an automatic
    rifle without a tripod and even these must be secured or they take off.
    You try to make it sound as though you could put 10-20 rounds into a
    12" circle on full automatic, shot from the shoulder as an aimed
    weapon. That is not true in the least. Give it up. That is not the
    way these weapons are used.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Smart bombs make up only a small fraction of the armament deployed
    > in Iraq and I've heard nothing bout their use since the initial
    > invasion.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I'm getting the impression you don't watch the news much.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Lay off the imputation and address the issue. I see that you try
    to cover your tracks with these responses so no one can say you
    claimed there WERE in fact smart bombs in use at the present. It
    doesn't wash!

    Quoted message said:

    Jobst, it's almost impossible to watch the news these days and NOT see
    reports of smart bombs being used - that's my point... don't read
    anything more into it than that. Smart bombs are being used with
    great effectiveness to destroy insurgent hideouts. The good news is
    that it's the Iraqis who are giving the coalition troops the info on
    where to hit and when.

    I guess two things strike me about that. Insergeatn hideouts and that
    these are in an inhabited city. I doubt that a bomb is smart enough
    to guess who is an "insurgent" and who is not, and how do you hit an
    apartment building so that only that floor and room of interest is
    destroyed? It all sounds so smart on paper. The results look
    disastrous.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > The US is not actively preventing civilian casualties--regardless
    > of smart bombs.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I'll make it easy (hah) for you... simply give us examples of
    similar military operations over such a huge area, and over such a
    large military, that resulted in fewer civilian casualties. That
    should be easy, right?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    For that to make any sense one needs to normalize that to
    interactions with military forces. As you see, this situation is
    not combat but a nation out of control where US soldiers are
    defending their presence rather than pursuing an enemy. It's like
    the "war" on terror. It doesn't work.

    Quoted message said:

    It's a policing action now - not unlike many others we've been
    involved in.

    Quoted message said:

    But this discussion has spiraled far, far away from the original
    point. That being, the US has spent a lot of money to minimize
    civilian deaths. That point being (I think) clearly made, it's time
    to move on to something (anything) more interesting.

    The point is that this is not taking place. What is happening is that
    the US army is no longer in Fallujah so there are few interactions
    with the "enemy".

    http://www.amin.org/eng/george_hishmeh/2004/sep23.html

    Jobst Brandt
    [email hidden]

  15. Quoted message said:
    Mark Hickey said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Weapons directly aimed in short proximity by a human are "smart"
    > weapons in any meaningful analysis (since their trajectory and
    > target aren't subject to the same kind of variation that bombs
    > dropped from an aircraft are).

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I see that you have never fired and automatic weapon as those used
    by US troops in Iraq. These are not used by sighting and squeezing
    the trigger, but rather are held at the hip on a sling and sprayed
    in the direction of interest. Shooting from the shoulder, as you
    apparently imagine, will knock the rifleman down. Only in the
    movies, do automatic weapons not kick the operator. They are NOT
    smart weapons!

    Quoted message said:

    I think perhaps you've been the one watching movies (your Governor
    usually shoots the way you describe). In all the footage I've seen
    from Iraq, I don't recall anyone "John Wayning" with an automatic
    weapon. If indeed a weapon does have a significant kick
    (particularly one that would "knock down" the soldier firing it),
    that's the very worst possible way to fire, since you're trying to
    stabilize it at arm's length, and have nothing at all to brace the
    weapon against. I've fired plenty of rifles and shotguns (including
    an AK-47 on full auto), and have not once been "knocked down" or
    even moved by the recoil.

    There is no way of shooting selectively at a target with an automatic
    rifle without a tripod and even these must be secured or they take off.
    You try to make it sound as though you could put 10-20 rounds into a
    12" circle on full automatic, shot from the shoulder as an aimed
    weapon. That is not true in the least. Give it up. That is not the
    way these weapons are used.

    [snip]

    Quoted message said:

    Jobst Brandt
    [email hidden]

    Dear Jobst,

    Please give us the details of your experience with the
    5.56mm M4 generally used by current U.S. Forces.

    Are you saying that this weapon will knock you down if you
    fire it from the shoulder full auto or three-round-burst?

    Carl Fogel

  16. In article <[email hidden]>, Mark Hickey

    Quoted message said:
    (George Herbert Walker) said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, Mark Hickey

    Quoted message said:

    I will point out that the civilian death rate for
    Iraqis has been considerably lower since the war started than under
    Saddam's regime.

    That's a total load of [censored]. You don't know what the civilian death rate in
    Iraq has been since the war. Besides, if you are going to average over all
    of Saddam's regime, why not average over both gulf wars: the US is
    responsible for over 200,000 Iraqi deaths from the first gulf war alone,
    not counting the half-million from the sanctions, responsibility for which
    is more contentious:

    www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2003/nf2003026_0167_db052.htm

    Adding back some of the parts you'd rather nobody- including yourself- know
    about:
    -----

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    One of the reasons you don't know the current death rate is that your heros
    in the administration go to great lengths to cover it up, as evidenced
    dramatically in the above report, and as also explained in more aspects in

    www.iraqbodycount.net


    [...]

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Your argument- the deaths we cause are less than those that would have been
    caused by Saddam- made sense back when Saddam was our bestest buddy, and
    Rumsfeld was over there licking Saddam's ass on behalf of Reagan and Bush,
    and the US was supplying Saddam with the info needed to target Iranian
    troops with chemical weapons, or slaughtering the Kurds and the Shia who
    fell for the US's little practical joke about uprising back in '91. But for
    this war, it is like so much else you say: bunk.


    -----

    Quoted message said:

    I'm glad you brought that up.

    You claim the sanctions killed 500,000 Iraqis. Those sanctions were
    imposed 12 years before the second war, by the UN.

    The UN was apparently ready to let the sanctions go on ad infinitum,
    so if the US hadn't taken matters into their own hands the death rate
    would have been around 50,000 per year - many times worse than it is
    now by any measure.

    It must be pretty dark down at the bottom of that barrel of swill you are
    scraping. You think people will forget that those sanctions were largely
    put in and entirely maintained onerously BY the US and the UK, USING the
    UN. Everyone else, upon seeing the ensuing disaster, tried to get them
    lifted, with little success in the face of US obstinacy. However, during
    the first Clinton term, the sanctions regime was changed considerably,
    leading to at least the end of starvation.

    As I said, who to blame the ensuing deaths on is contentious. Who put in
    and maintained the sanctions is not. There were (but since the war, are no
    longer) many ways for the US to take matters into their own hands, and as
    we see the neocon's war was only the dumbest of them.

    --
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

    Please excuse the inconvenience allegedly caused by our son. Send
    us the bill for all the damages, and we can settle this to your
    satisfaction, without any need for a public record of the incident.

    Most Sincerely, George and Bar

  17. John Forrest Tomlinson said:

    On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:28:33 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>
    wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I'll take that
    to mean you realize that, contrary to your assertion, the US has been
    more successful in minimizing civilian deaths than in any war in
    history.

    Gee, there you go again with the relativism over right and wrong. I
    thought that was something only liberals did.

    Nah, you're confusing philosophy with statistics.

    Mark Hickey
    Habanero Cycles
    http://www.habcycles.com
    Home of the $695 ti frame

  18. Quoted message said:

    Mark Hickey writes:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    But this discussion has spiraled far, far away from the original
    point. That being, the US has spent a lot of money to minimize
    civilian deaths. That point being (I think) clearly made, it's time
    to move on to something (anything) more interesting.

    The point is that this is not taking place. What is happening is that
    the US army is no longer in Fallujah so there are few interactions
    with the "enemy".

    http://www.amin.org/eng/george_hishmeh/2004/sep23.html

    What's that got to do with the accuracy of automatic weapons.

    As I said before - I'm done with this thread...

    Mark Hickey
    Habanero Cycles
    http://www.habcycles.com
    Home of the $695 ti frame

  19. (George Herbert Walker) said:

    Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I'm glad you brought that up.

    You claim the sanctions killed 500,000 Iraqis. Those sanctions were
    imposed 12 years before the second war, by the UN.

    The UN was apparently ready to let the sanctions go on ad infinitum,
    so if the US hadn't taken matters into their own hands the death rate
    would have been around 50,000 per year - many times worse than it is
    now by any measure.

    It must be pretty dark down at the bottom of that barrel of swill you are
    scraping. You think people will forget that those sanctions were largely
    put in and entirely maintained onerously BY the US and the UK, USING the
    UN.

    Heh heh heh (no, I'm not laughing WITH you). Now you expect us all to
    believe that the UN is simply a lapdog of the US and UK. Heh heh heh.

    Quoted message said:

    Everyone else, upon seeing the ensuing disaster, tried to get them
    lifted, with little success in the face of US obstinacy. However, during
    the first Clinton term, the sanctions regime was changed considerably,
    leading to at least the end of starvation.

    And the enrichment of many of the countries who subsequently profited
    from the Oil-for-Food fiasco (including those who were suddenly
    opposed to military action against Saddam for any reason). Billions
    of dollars were misappropriated, and did very little to actually help
    the Iraqis (notice the state of the economy and infrastructure in '03,
    but the absolute splendor of Saddam's newest palaces). Yeah, that was
    a BIG help. Not.

    Quoted message said:

    As I said, who to blame the ensuing deaths on is contentious. Who put in
    and maintained the sanctions is not. There were (but since the war, are no
    longer) many ways for the US to take matters into their own hands, and as
    we see the neocon's war was only the dumbest of them.

    Yada yada yada... if there was no threat, the UN would have repealed
    the sanctions years ago. The UN weapons inspectors found there was
    indeed a very, very large threat - hence you're the one living in the
    bottom of a barrel that is apparently impervious to facts that are
    opposed to your odd world view.

    Mark Hickey
    Habanero Cycles
    http://www.habcycles.com
    Home of the $695 ti frame

  20. In article <[email hidden]>, Mark Hickey

    Quoted message said:

    Heh heh heh

    Quoted message said:

    Yada yada yada

    For brevity I selected the only cogent and truthful parts of your latest
    attempt to digress, divert and deceive. Keep on cackling.

    For those interested in the real impact of the sanctions, and for an eerily
    prescient pre-invasion ordinary-Iraqi-eye view of what the US's "taking
    matters into its own hands" would end up as, get hold of Emmy-award winning
    documentary filmmaker Shelley Saywell's "Generation of Hate":

    http://www.cbc.ca/witness/iraq/index.html

    Everything that is happening now was not only eminently predictable but
    also predicted, by everyone who knew anything about the matter.
    Unfortunately none of these had any clout in this administration of dunces.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Dunce
    His former Harvard Business School professor recalls George W. Bush not
    just as a terrible student but as spoiled, loutish and a pathological liar.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - By Mary Jacoby

    Sept. 16, 2004 | For 25 years, Yoshi Tsurumi, one of George W. Bush's
    professors at Harvard Business School, was content with his green-card
    status as a permanent legal resident of the United States. But Bush's
    ascension to the presidency in 2001 prompted the Japanese native to secure
    his American citizenship. The reason: to be able to speak out with the full
    authority of citizenship about why he believes Bush lacks the character and
    intellect to lead the world's oldest and most powerful democracy.

    "I don't remember all the students in detail unless I'm prompted by
    something," Tsurumi said in a telephone interview Wednesday. "But I always
    remember two types of students. One is the very excellent student, the type
    as a professor you feel honored to be working with. Someone with strong
    social values, compassion and intellect -- the very rare person you never
    forget. And then you remember students like George Bush, those who are
    totally the opposite."

    The future president was one of 85 first-year MBA students in Tsurumi's
    macroeconomic policies and international business class in the fall of 1973
    and spring of 1974. Tsurumi was a visiting associate professor at Harvard
    Business School from January 1972 to August 1976; today, he is a professor
    of international business at Baruch College in New York.

    Trading as usual on his father's connections, Bush entered Harvard in 1973
    for a two-year program. He'd just come off what George H.W. Bush had once
    called his eldest son's "nomadic years" -- partying, drifting from job to
    job, working on political campaigns in Florida and Alabama and, most
    famously, apparently not showing up for duty in the Alabama National Guard.

    Harvard Business School's rigorous teaching methods, in which the professor
    interacts aggressively with students, and students are encouraged to
    challenge each other sharply, offered important insights into Bush, Tsurumi
    said. In observing students' in-class performances, "you develop pretty
    good ideas about what are their weaknesses and strengths in terms of
    thinking, analysis, their prejudices, their backgrounds and other things
    that students reveal," he said.

    One of Tsurumi's standout students was Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif., now the
    seventh-ranking member of the House Republican leadership. "I typed him as
    a conservative Republican with a conscience," Tsurumi said. "He never
    confused his own ideology with economics, and he didn't try to hide his
    ignorance of a subject in mumbo jumbo. He was what I call a principled
    conservative." (Though clearly a partisan one. On Wednesday, Cox called for
    a congressional investigation of the validity of documents that CBS News
    obtained for a story questioning Bush's attendance at Guard duty in
    Alabama.)

    Bush, by contrast, "was totally the opposite of Chris Cox," Tsurumi said.
    "He showed pathological lying habits and was in denial when challenged on
    his prejudices and biases. He would even deny saying something he just said
    30 seconds ago. He was famous for that. Students jumped on him; I
    challenged him." When asked to explain a particular comment, said Tsurumi,
    Bush would respond, "Oh, I never said that." A White House spokeswoman did
    not return a phone call seeking comment.

    In 1973, as the oil and energy crisis raged, Tsurumi led a discussion on
    whether government should assist retirees and other people on fixed incomes
    with heating costs. Bush, he recalled, "made this ridiculous statement and
    when I asked him to explain, he said, 'The government doesn't have to help
    poor people -- because they are lazy.' I said, 'Well, could you explain
    that assumption?' Not only could he not explain it, he started backtracking
    on it, saying, 'No, I didn't say that.'"

    If Cox had been in the same class, Tsurumi said, "I could have asked him to
    challenge that and he would have demolished it. Not personally or
    emotionally, but intellectually."

    Bush once sneered at Tsurumi for showing the film "The Grapes of Wrath,"
    based on John Steinbeck's novel of the Depression. "We were in a discussion
    of the New Deal, and he called Franklin Roosevelt's policies 'socialism.'
    He denounced labor unions, the Securities and Exchange Commission,
    Medicare, Social Security, you name it. He denounced the civil rights
    movement as socialism. To him, socialism and communism were the same thing.
    And when challenged to explain his prejudice, he could not defend his
    argument, either ideologically, polemically or academically."

    Students who challenged and embarrassed Bush in class would then become the
    subject of a whispering campaign by him, Tsurumi said. "In class, he
    couldn't challenge them. But after class, he sometimes came up to me in the
    hallway and started bad-mouthing those students who had challenged him. He
    would complain that someone was drinking too much. It was innuendo and
    lies. So that's how I knew, behind his smile and his smirk, that he was a
    very insecure, cunning and vengeful guy."

    Many of Tsurumi's students came from well-connected or wealthy families,
    but good manners prevented them from boasting about it, the professor said.
    But Bush seemed unabashed about the connections that had brought him to
    Harvard. "The other children of the rich and famous were at least well bred
    to the point of realizing universal values and standards of behavior,"
    Tsurumi said. But Bush sometimes came late to class and often sat in the
    back row of the theater-like classroom, wearing a bomber jacket from the
    Texas Air National Guard and spitting chewing tobacco into a cup.

    "At first, I wondered, 'Who is this George Bush?' It's a very common name
    and I didn't know his background. And he was such a bad student that I
    asked him once how he got in. He said, 'My dad has good friends.'" Bush
    scored in the lowest 10 percent of the class.

    The Vietnam War was still roiling campuses and Harvard was no exception.
    Bush expressed strong support for the war but admitted to Tsurumi that he'd
    gotten a coveted spot in the Texas Air National Guard through his father's
    connections.

    "I used to chat up a number of students when we were walking back to
    class," Tsurumi said. "Here was Bush, wearing a Texas Guard bomber jacket,
    and the draft was the No. 1 topic in those days. And I said, 'George, what
    did you do with the draft?' He said, 'Well, I got into the Texas Air
    National Guard.' And I said, 'Lucky you. I understand there is a long
    waiting list for it. How'd you get in?' When he told me, he didn't seem
    ashamed or embarrassed. He thought he was entitled to all kinds of
    privileges and special deals. He was not the only one trying to twist all
    their connections to avoid Vietnam. But then, he was fanatically for the
    war."

    Tsurumi told Bush that someone who avoided a draft while supporting a war
    in which others were dying was a hypocrite. "He realized he was caught,
    showed his famous smirk and huffed off."

    Tsurumi's conclusion: Bush is not as dumb as his detractors allege. "He was
    just badly brought up, with no discipline, and no compassion," he said.

    In recent days, Tsurumi has told his story to various print and television
    outlets and appears in Kitty Kelley's exposé "The Family: The Real Story of
    the Bush Dynasty." He said other professors and students at the business
    school from that time share his recollections but are afraid to come
    forward, fearing ostracism or retribution. And why is Tsurumi speaking up
    now? Because with the ongoing bloodshed in Iraq and Osama bin Laden still
    on the loose -- not to mention a federal deficit ballooning out of control
    -- the stakes are too high to remain silent. "Obviously, I don't think he
    is the best person" to be running the country, he said. "I wanted to
    explain why."

    - - - - - - - - - - - -

    About the writer
    Mary Jacoby is Salon's Washington correspondent.

    --
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

    Please excuse the inconvenience allegedly caused by our son. Send
    us the bill for all the damages, and we can settle this to your
    satisfaction, without any need for a public record of the incident.

    Most Sincerely, George and Bar

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.