Fallback Options

Walt wrote:

Tom wrote:
I believe it a fact that Utah still supports Bush at a high level.

Dear Tom,

Sir, you are the master.

With a scant 14 words you have sent this august newsgroup into a
feeding frenzy: The Iraq War, WMD, NAMBLA, Abortion, Polygamy, Gay
Marriage, The Mormon Church, Top-posting, proper attributions, *false*
attributions, Godwin's Law, Flag Burning, Vegetartinism,

Does that involve the worship of rutabaga pie?

PETA, Tofurkey, The ACLU, the Budget Deficit...etc...etc...

It is a sight to behold. I am in awe.

The only thing missing is Turtle Wax.

Speaking of Turtle Wax, who killed Horvie?

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== =
"I love deadlines... especially the whooshing sound
they make as they go by." -Douglas Adams

The Real Bev wrote:

klaus wrote:
The Real Bev wrote:
klaus wrote:
AstroPax wrote:

I counter that it was not that clear cut at the time.

Nobody liked Saddam except his customers. Everybody thought he had WMD.
Everybody has an agenda. Nobody has clean hands. The question is
really 'What should we do now?'

Well, if you're going to reduce it to a simple question, the simple
answer is to fire the people who got us into this mess. The Captain
runs the ship onto the rocks, the Captain gets replaced. At least
that's how it works in the would where people are held responsible for
their actions.

Of course, some of us did realize at the time that the WMD stuff was
an elaborate snipe hunt, but as Astro put it so succinctly, we "didn't
matter." And while I can handle being consigned to the "doesn't
matter" bin (hey, I'm used to it) the fact is that Hans Blix and his
team of UN inspectors were put in the "doesn't matter" bin as well.
If that's not an indictment of the decision makers, I don't know what is.


// Walt

AstroPax wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 18:24:55 +0000 (UTC), klaus
wrote:

Whether Bush was directly involved is still unclear and why Phase II
of the report should have been delivered on time. I think it is clear
from what we're seeing, that there was information available that was
not given to the congress. Congress did not know the information
source about the nuclear fuel was unreliable. Sosomeone misled. Who
that was should be a top priority to determine. Where the flow got
filtered is still up for debate.

If that is the case...misled...then I think the CIA is suspect.

But I'm not convinced anyone was misled in the first place.

I dunno, I'd call not being fully informed being misled.

In reality,

One must judge the course of action taken based upon what the players
perceived as the "reality" at *that* time, not upon the reality of the
present. To do otherwise is called 20/20 hindsight.

Yes, and that is what concerns me, at the time, the information was
not fully dessiminated. Like the unreliable informant.

Iraq was not a clear and
present threat.

That's *your* opinion, which, BTW was not shared by many, including
many democrats and republicans alike at the time prior to the
invasion, both post and pre 9/11. Again, I won't post all of the
quotes.

The nuclear informant reliability and outting of the operative is
kinda some of the things I'm wondering about. If that information
wasn't presented, Congress was not fully informed. Why that happened
and whether it was malicious is what the investigations will show.

The sanctions and oversight as well as the no-fly
zone, were pretty much working.

I wholeheartedly disagree, particularly about the no-fly zones, both
North and South.

Sitting at my post in the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) in
Saudi Arabia (Operation: Southern Watch), and monitoring the Common
Operating Picture (COP), I personally observed Iraqi fighters violate
the Southern No Fly Zone on hundreds of occasions.

There wasn't much we could do because they would dash in and out too
quickly. Even a four-ship F-15C CAP in close proximity to the
violation can't catch a fleeing jet that fast. Cat and mouse...cat
and mouse....cat and mouse. Circle jerk...circle jerk...circle jerk.

Furthermore, it was not uncommon for the Iraqi SAM sights to
illuminate our patrolling aircraft. Of course, those SAM sights often
paid the price...and a deadly one at that.

Hmmm.. I guess we had different objectives. Sounds pretty
successful. Seems like it saved thousands of lives. Don't blame the
fly for you being annoyed by it. We should have just blown them away
if they came in regardless of whether they went back. That would have
fixed it. Would it haved ****ed off the world, yah. More ****ed off
than now, no.

I think his motive was very obvious, and very public.

Then we wouldn't need an investigation.

It was based
upon the perception (right or wrong) that Iraq was a definite threat
at the time. Of course, that leads us back to the other questions at
hand, so I guess we will have to wait and see.

Correct, it was not clear cut. Wars should not be embarked upon, until
clear cut.

I'll call this the "klaus doctrine".

I won't take credit for it. I think it's called international law.

Personally, I'm a strong believer in "preemptive action", provided
that there is reasonable evidence/belief that the action in question
is justified. IMO, I think that standard was met. How long do you
think that we should have allowed Iraq to keep playing "circle-jerk"?

We played cat and mouse with the Soviet Union for decades. It's not so
bad compared to actually shedding a lot of blood. The approach we took
is now beyond cat and mouse. Terrorists are a bit cattier.

But anyway, here's a pretty bright guy giving advice on when force is
justified, under international law. I don't see the cat and mouse
rule. And premption is not a justified reason.

http://tinyurl.com/bxt3q

It sounds like a pretty thorough analysis from both sides and very
impartial. My take is that he is suggesting that the coalition's
decision be clear cut and that presently it was not.

I don't know. Seems like we are tying-up a lot of the assholes in
Iraq.

Mostly ones we created...

I think it's called "taking the fight to the enemy".

Yah, I wish we'd done that, too.

Don't you
find it interesting that most of the enemy are foreign fighters, and
not Iraqi themselves?

Not really. Do you? Tough to kill Americans where there aren't
any. They probably use the same argument with regards to us.

If they congress was fully informed, then I agree. But that's not
things are looking. Somone had information that was culled. If they'd
get on with the investigation, I'd trust them more. But there seems to be stonewalling.

This is really a key point, so, like I said above, I guess we will
have to wait and see how things play out in the end.

Yes.

-klaus

AstroPax wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 01:01:05 +0000 (UTC), klaus
wrote:

The ones that were wrong? ;

I think that they thought that they were right at the time, and I
doubt that they thought that they were wrong at the time. If they
knew that they were wrong at the time, and they did it anyway, then I
think that it was the wrong thing for them to do, at that time. The
question is, and it remains, who knew what, and when did they know it?
You know what I mean?

Right. They weren't wrong at the time. Just not sure.

-klaus

AstroPax wrote:

I think that they thought that they were right at the time, and I
doubt that they thought that they were wrong at the time. If they
knew that they were wrong at the time, and they did it anyway, then I
think that it was the wrong thing for them to do, at that time. The
question is, and it remains, who knew what, and when did they know it?
You know what I mean?

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean: What did the president know, and
when did he know it?

In particular, what was in the PDB (President's Daily Briefing) of
Sept 21, 2001? The WH refuses to turn it over to the Senate
Intelligence Committee. Meanwhile, the WH is loudly proclaiming that
everybody had access to the same intelligence that they did.

Still think you're getting the straight story from them? How many
times do you have to catch them fibbing before you stop believing them?


--
// Walt
//
//Links? Sure we got links:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10164478/
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njw...05/1122nj1.htm

"AstroPax" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:01:40 -0800, The Real Bev
wrote:

If I was going to declare war on someone it would be South Pasadena for
blocking essential freeway construction for over 30 years.

I still have some friends working at HQ STRATCOM. Want an air strike?

Course, that would probably make your freeway congestion just a little
worse than it already is.

A properly placed South Pasadena airstrike would just clear the way.

Freeway construction is forever. My personal daily commute crosses over two
reconstruction projects. This one extends the I-15 reversible hov lanes,
and adds a few lanes in the process:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/I-15managed.htm

This one addsl alnes to the I-5/I-805 merge, widening from the current 8
lanes to 23 in places, with hov lanes and truck bypass flyovers added, and a
new intersection in the middle of it all.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/facts/5-805.pdf

ant wrote:

The Real Bev wrote:

Nobody liked Saddam except his customers. Everybody thought he had
WMD.

Everybody did NOT!

OK: "Most people in a position to make decisions about what to do about it
thought he had WMD." Better?

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== =============
Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely and in a
well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, totally worn out,
and shouting HOLY ****!!! WHAT A RIDE!!!

tm wrote:

The Real Bev wrote:

Greek/Trojan Soldier: "Tell me again why WE have to die because SHE's
cheating on her husband?"

heh.
US/brit soldier: "Tell me again why WE gotta die because some dude
tried to off HIS daddy?"

Suicide bomber: "Virgins here I come!"

American soldier: "We're attacking this godforsaken place because WHO got a
hummer in WHAT office?"

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== =============
Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely and in a
well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, totally worn out,
and shouting HOLY ****!!! WHAT A RIDE!!!

AstroPax wrote:

wrote:

If I was going to declare war on someone it would be South Pasadena for
blocking essential freeway construction for over 30 years.

I still have some friends working at HQ STRATCOM. Want an air strike?

How much will it cost? I'm pretty sure I can raise whatever it takes from the
locals, but I may need some time.

Course, that would probably make your freeway congestion just a little
worse than it already is.

Not if you aim right. Fill in the missing line between the 210 South stub and
the 710 North stub. 10 lanes plus a median for the train, please, and about
50 feet below the current surface. Freeway noise is annoying.

Don't worry about the paving, we'll take care of that. OTOH, wouldn't small
tactical nukes be able to do that? And if you could scare up some neutron
bombs, I've got a few ideas there too.

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== ============
Everyone crashes. Some get back on. Some don't. Some can't.

Walt wrote:

The Real Bev wrote:

klaus wrote:
The Real Bev wrote:
klaus wrote:
AstroPax wrote:

I counter that it was not that clear cut at the time.

Nobody liked Saddam except his customers. Everybody thought he had WMD.
Everybody has an agenda. Nobody has clean hands. The question is
really 'What should we do now?'

Well, if you're going to reduce it to a simple question, the simple
answer is to fire the people who got us into this mess. The Captain
runs the ship onto the rocks, the Captain gets replaced. At least
that's how it works in the would where people are held responsible for
their actions.

OK, that takes care of the punishment part. Then what?

Of course, some of us did realize at the time that the WMD stuff was
an elaborate snipe hunt, but as Astro put it so succinctly, we "didn't
matter." And while I can handle being consigned to the "doesn't
matter" bin (hey, I'm used to it) the fact is that Hans Blix and his
team of UN inspectors were put in the "doesn't matter" bin as well.
If that's not an indictment of the decision makers, I don't know what is.

OK, so they're indicted, tried, convicted, appealed and hanged. Now what?

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== ============
Everyone crashes. Some get back on. Some don't. Some can't.