Slashdot Mirror

Small nit-pick, but those "pilot-less planes" are do not carry any weapons.

Actually, all "remote killing" machines are illegal under the Geneva Conventions, and the use of such machines would constitute a war crime.

Small nit-pick, but those "pilot-less planes" are do not carry any weapons.

Actually, all "remote killing" machines are illegal under the Geneva Conventions, and the use of such machines would constitute a war crime.

The SR71 uses one of the more complex methods of maintaining high mach travel, but it isn't the only one. The B70 Valkyrie experimental strategic bomber solved the problem using wings that folded down vertically to encompass the shockwave beneath the fusalage and literally ride it. It's supremely ironic that this aircraft can outrun today's B1-b Lancer by a full two times the speed of sound using 1950s technology.

Some history on this forgotten, stunning piece of aviation engineering.

The SR71 uses one of the more complex methods of maintaining high mach travel, but it isn't the only one. The B70 Valkyrie experimental strategic bomber solved the problem using wings that folded down vertically to encompass the shockwave beneath the fusalage and literally ride it. It's supremely ironic that this aircraft can outrun today's B1-b Lancer by a full two times the speed of sound using 1950s technology.

Some history on this forgotten, stunning piece of aviation engineering.

IANAEE but, here's another article that references vacuum tubes resistance to EMP and it directly speaks of the MIG-25 which I sited in my earlier post.... Also it appears to be written by a Major in the Marine Core in response to requests for information about hardened circuits. It also has a reasonable bibliography at the end should you care to research the primary sources....

Actually, the F16 is also produced by Belgium, the Netherlands, Turkey and South Korea (article). It is fairly common for aircraft to be produced under license. Other examples are the T-45 Goshawk and AV-8B Harrier II which Boeing produce under license from BAE SYSTEMS (formerly British Aerospace).

We are technically at war with North Korea, and have been for 50 years now. The North Koreans are a major source of ballistic missile proliferation as they continue to develop and export a range of sophisticated missiles to nations such as Iran and Yemen. They have tested components for a missile capable of reaching the United States. They either have, or are close to having nuclear weapons. The North Koreas bought 12 decommissioned Soviet submarines and have used them to advance their technology and may deploy weapons on them.

North Korea regularly threatens to attack the United States.

To get a sense of the nature of the North Korean government you can just look at how they treat: orphans, the US deserver who just returned after 40 years, the Japanese they kidnapped to teach their spies, and last, but not least, the victims of their gulag.

The North Koreans could teach lessons to the Iraqi Information Minister. They deny having dug the tunnels into South Korea, some of which are big enough to drive vehicles. (A handy thing if you were of a mind to invade the South, no?) They no doubt also deny their regular attempts to infiltrate groups of agents into South Korea.

The North Korean Army had million soldiers in it in 1992. The North Koreans have been willing to starve the population, significant numbers to death, in order to sustain the army.

North Korea is a designated member of the "Axis of Evil."

They seem like a bunch you might want to protect yourself against.

All this extra speed will not be available for the common public until they can resolve the problem with the sonic boom. Once that is resolved I think it would be a lot more interesting where they could have supersonic flights that go over land as well.

Good point. It looks this problem is on the way to being solved. Have a look at the following link:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/air craft/qsp.htm

The primary military application for this technology would be for cruise missiles. The U.S. is by their own account 10 years behind Russia in cruise missile technology. The Russian SS-N-22 Sunburn Missile uses airbreathing ramjet technology and flies at roughly Mach 3, making it the most feared cruise missile in the world. The Russians have exported this (primarily anti-ship) missile technology to China and is also jointly developing a similar cruise missile with India which was test fired recently.

The U.S. would love to have a mach 10 cruise missile to counter this threat since their Tomahawk cruise missiles are inferior as they fly at subsonic speeds. As it is now, a Chinese or Russian destroyer/sub/plane could take out an aircraft carrier with one Sunburn missile that flies at a cruising altitude of 40 feet and is too fast for on board (phalanx) anti-missile systems to defend against.

The president would have been in gross violation of his oath of office to have allowed US citizens to be prosecuted by a non-US court.

OK, please quote which section of the consitution, or the President's oath of office if you like, prohibits US citizens from being prosecuted by a non-US court. Again, sorry to disappoint you, but it happens all the time - it's a basic tenet of international law. Why else would the US have extradition treaties with other countries (for example, the US-UK Extradition Treaty, which "Obligates each State to extradite to the other, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, persons sought by the authorities in the Requesting State for trial or punishment for extraditable offenses")?

If you don't like the ICC, fine. But at least get your facts straight before you criticise it. And, while you're at it, stop treating the US constitution like some sort of magic piece of paper that has universal powers. It doesn't.

You probably believe that B.S. story about the Russians, right?

KSTP news embeds with the 101st Airbourne filmed the explosives at Al Qa Qaa. The evidence in indisputable no matter how you try to spin it.

For a truly reprehensible action, how about how the Bush administration waited until after the election to attack Fallujah so that they wouldn't have to deal with all negative consequences of casualties beforehand. Talk about putting politics ahead of everything else!

Pick yourself up, make a difference rather than moping for 4 years and try to make the difference you think Kerry should have done in your place.

You do that, you might find yourself here or here or here or here.

Lets see now....

Since 9/11 Bin Laden has lost control of an entire country he used to OWN (Afghanistan) and which has flipped from a theocracy from the middle ages to having open, fair elections, he has had his money supply choked off and confiscated, had his training bases captured, lost large amounts of supplies, had his homes and compounds captured, given us huge amounts of intelligence data like Al Qaeda membership lists and plans, had thousands of his followers captured or killed, had to hide deep in the mountains to avoid being killed when he used to ride around in style, had numerous plans fail, had 75% of the known Al Qaeda leaders captured or killed (and no doubt replaced by less experienced and less well trained stand-ins), had his ability to contact and control his followers sharply limited, his pal Zarqawi is having a rough time, and yet, somehow, .... he thinks this is good? You think he wants more of this? If you are right, Bin Laden is apparently trying to discover a level of "victory" below pyrrhic victory. If he has much more success like that, he is a dead man, him and his followers. I don't know, but if you ask me, distributing video tapes is a poor substitute for a terrorist that wants to hand out bombs. He should change his name to Osamma Big Loser.

And you think George Bush has been really underperforming and that John Kerry is going to really get things in high gear, huh? Do tell. I'd love to hear it. I'm not sure what he could do before 2007. It takes a long time to train the special forces soldiers he will need to double special forces, and to raise the two new divisions. And that is after he gets them through Congress. Those are about the only concrete things that I have heard from John Kerry on the subject.

OK they're #5 among the main nuclear powers, but that's still ~120 nuclear missles can do enough damage to consider them pretty powerful.

You're right; I didn't mention Israel, though I have in previous posts. And the situation is certainly a contentious one at best. However, my problem is as follows: if we did end support for Israel, it pains me to think of what might become of it. While the Israelis have not been, shall we say, very helpful in this situation, there are many on the opposing side who wish for Israel to cease to exist entirely, and exterminating all of the Jews might not be a bad idea either. I'm not saying everyone, even in some of the radical Islamic sects, believes that; just that there are a sizable number who do. Whether these feelings are rooted in radicalism or whether the radicalism was brought about by the Israelis and/or US policy is at this point academic. (Not to mention the fact that Israel is a shining star for us; an example that democracy can work in the region, religion notwithstanding.)

But as for saying something about the Israeli/Palestinian situation, I'll say this: Bush has been the first US president to suggest a completely autonomous and sovereign Palestinian state. Many say that's just talk; rhetoric with no teeth. Perhaps.

As to your last point: I'm not saying the PNAC crowd has the perfect solution here. But I do strongly believe in the idea that freedom - free flow of information, free governments, free markets, freedom of religion, free peoples - are manifestly "good" things, and have a way of silencing serious radicalism of the types espoused by al-Qaeda, the Wahhabists and the like. Sure, "radicals" exist in free states as well - but they are largely marginalized by the majority. The difference we may be dealing with now is the concept that radicals otherwise unable to do any statistically significant harm may come into possession of a weapon of mass destruction. It might be argued that even if they did, it is unjustified to live in fear of the result - I disagree. The terrorists actions are designed to instill terror; realizing that fact does not make the prospects any less frightening. Note that I am not saying people should continually live in crippling fear of what may or may not occur. Just that we want to prevent such an event from happening in the first place.

I agree it is intensely complex. But the simplicity of freedom is compelling. The notion that some people "don't want" freedom is very questionable to me. It's akin to saying that a battered wife doesn't "want" to leave her husband: she may literally believe that; that, however, does not mean it is the best thing. While installing democracies is risky business, I don't believe freedom is "imposed". Quite the contrary: I believe that freedom is the default state. Of course I don't believe anyone, including in free nations, has ultimate freedom. There are restrictions collectively decided upon by society. One might ask why, then, is someone in the Arab/Persian/northeast-African world not allowed to make those same judgments? First of all, that would be our aim. But second, and more importantly, they are not afforded those choices now. (If you have time, I would also urge you to read this document related to the subject at hand.)

And related to all of this is the fact that the region has a resource that is critical to the functioning of modern Western civilization. That cannot be denied. The "Bush doctrine" and the new strategy in the middle east is far from perfect. But there comes a time when you stop looking for perfection and start asking the question "When is it ok to protect ourselves and our interests?"

Link for proof that Kerry voted against first gulf war
link

Links proving we are still hunting Osama
link link link link

You call me insane? We are fighting Terrorism all over the world. We are trying to find Osama. We are destroying his terror network. I would say there's no disputing it, but people who don't like GWBs religious beliefs will argue anything no matter how crazy. Whose insane if you think you can't find any evidence that there are mass graves? Whose insane if you think terrorism didn't exist or doesn't exist in Iraq? Whose insane if you don't think fighting the war in Iraq doesn't help in the war on Terror? What rock have you been hiding under? Maybe its the CBS, CNN, NY Times, LA Times, ABC News, or USA Today rock. Hmm.. That can't be it.. I used some of those links in my proofs above.

Or perhaps, you live in one of the countries of our "allies" and have this information suppressed so you don't support this war.

"he want to destroy those that would pose a danger to this country"

In what way did Iraq actually pose a threat to this country. There are countries that are far more threatening than Iraq which is why your house of cards falls. If this was the reason then North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would have been taken down first because they all pose a much more direct and immediate threat to the U.S. Pakistan, ostensible our ally was an intimate and direct supporter of the Taliban, they were their closest ally. The U.S. had to let them evacuate the hundreds of agents they had working with the Taliban when Afghanistan fell. Pakistan was in fact actually selling nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran and who knows who else and the ringleader, A.Q. Khan when exposed was instantly pardoned by Pakistan. Pakistan's tribal regions are actually Al Qaida's current home base and Pakistan hasn't really done anything to root them out of it.

"It's a matter of do you believe that Bush wants to become a "colonial" power or does he want to destroy those that would pose a danger to this country"

There is an easy test. If we aren't planning to be a colonial power we will pull out as soon as Iraq's great democracy is on its feet. All indications are the Bush administration is instead working to establish 4 to 14 permanent military bases in Iraq. From GlobalSecurity. The U.S. is dismantling its problem plagued bases in Saudi Arabia and all indications are they will be replaced with permanent Iraqi bases which will have fewer constraints than those in Saudi Arabia did. They will be much better to threaten Iran and Syria in particular.

That is the most basic indicator of colonial aspirations, as is the enormous size of the permanent U.S. embassy in Baghdad. One of the few things in Kerry's defense is he says he is going to pull out of those bases at the first opportunity.

This is fundamental. If we are putting huge and permanent military bases in Iraq we are planning a permanent occupation and and it will lead to a permanent Iraqi insurgency fighting that occupation. If we let Iraq go its own way, good or bad, then we are not a colonial power.

" Every single person in the country got a tax cut"

Tax cuts only work if you cut spending at the same time. When you cut taxes and increase spending, dramatically, as the Republicans have they are creating a false prosperity. They are handing out borrowed money in exchange for votes and it works. This can be good in the short term to stimulate a struggling economy but when you continue it in perpetuity as is the Republican plan the debt is eventually going to come home to roost and crush future generations.

"and instead implement a National Sales tax system"

Unfortunately this is the most regressive form of taxation which is why rich conservatives always favor it. The poor and middle income spend most of their income which is why sales taxes are regressive. You would have to exempt everything the poor and middle income buy to make it not regressive and at that point you are only taxing luxuries which isn't going to pay the bills. The wealthy don't spend most of their income, they accumulate it, so they also don't carry much of the burden. Switching to a regressive tax system will just accelerate the rate at which the wealthy accumulate wealth, and will probably bankrupt the government unless you lay a huge sales tax on the poor and middle class.

America already went down this road in the late 1800's and early 1900's, it resulted in the progressive movement and progressive income taxes to slow the concentration of wealth by a few and the expansion of poverty for everyone else.

If you want to insure the rich get taxed just delete the entire tax code with all its shelters and dodges and go to a simple income tax with no deductions, no shelters and no dodges.

"It seems to me that the environmentalists a

The US is already in a depression, it's just hidden under the fake numbers placed in the stock market by the SEC.

So you are a conspiry theorist to eh? Purputrated by the evil Zionists no doubt. As usual no evidence to back anything up. If you'd like *me* to site sources on anything I say here I'd be delighted.

And the fact you actually bought the lie that the dark ages existed

Ok, I give up. Why didn't the dark ages exist? More Zionist Propaganda? And as to your supposition that Arabia was nothing but war-driven, who invaded them during the crusades? Oh and I forget about the massive European secular art movement at the time. As for their art, have you actually seen any of it. Have you ever been to school? You still sound like a high schooler.

Well, two out of three ain't bad. But somehow, 120 degree AVERAGE temperature- and 10 feet down, that's what you get, the average outside temperature, year around- is anything but cool.

Uhg. Check it out. Yes it gets hot, often to 120, but that is nowhere near the average. 104 in the summer, 50 in the winter. Average? 75. But ever notice how cool it is in your basement, even in the summertime? Same concept. The average temperature ten feet down at that latitude in summer is a sweltering 65. Look it up dick cheese. The sun really doesn't have a chance to warm up the soil more than a couple feet down before it cools down to nighttime again. And I guess you've never heard about the story during the first iraq war, a stranded special ops force had serveral members freeze to death when they were caught unprepared for the climate. No, Iraq isn't as mountainous as Afganistan, but it's deserts get just as hot. Buried weapons last a long time.

my heritage is Cherokee, Kwakiutal, and Nes Pierce.

If that's you at the informationr.us page, then I don't believe you for one second. Then again, why should I?

your lying white ancestors

Were still in Europe until the 1900's, and never went further west than the mississipi until the next generation. When I said about our heritage I mean as a whole nation.

Your xenophobic, racist, revisionist, ignorant, hawkish points of view holds no more interest to me. And if you really believe what you say, you should put our discussion on you family and business page and attribute it to yourself just in case any evil Zionists or Muslims want to do business with you. You think *any* US politian would've done what you said?

1968 was an important year in world history, no doubt about it. In 1998, there was a wave of documentaries, books and essays about that year. The authors focused on yippies trashing democratic convention in Chicago, Warsaw Pact invading Czechoslovakia, student uprising in Paris, Mexico massacre, flower-power, maoism, Vietnam war, Beatles recording white album or Che Guevara in Bolivia.

Almost nobody noticed that 1968 was also the year when Noyce an Moore founded Intel, Douglas Engelbart demoed for the fist time GUI, mouse and word processing, UCLA and Stanford started to build their networking connection. Even today, scholars seem not to notice the relevance of these facts.

Bush (approximately): 'He says we didn't have allies? What does he say to Tony Blair? What does he say to Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland?'

President Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland: 'They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride.'

Sorry, this has been debunked. According to contemporary reports the explosives were still there when we arrived, no matter what Drudge would like to have you think during the next few days.

In 1971 a joint civilian-military committee, the Brazilian Commission for Space Activities (Comissão Brasileira de Atividades Espaciais--Cobae), was established and placed under the CSN (National Security Council). Cobae was chaired by the head of the Armed Forces General Staff (Estado-Maior das Forças Armadas--EMFA) and was in charge of the Complete Brazilian Space Mission (Missão Espacial Completa Brasileira--MECB). The MECB, created in 1981, was an ambitious US$1 billion program with the aim of attaining self-sufficiency in space technology.

The potential military applications of Brazil's MECB center around the Sonda IV and its VLS, which could be used for a ballistic missile. Sonda IV has a range of 600 kilometers and can carry a 500-kilogram payload, and is therefore subject to MTCR restrictions. The transformation of the Sonda IV into an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) would require several more successful launches and a major technological leap, especially in payload shielding and guidance.

The government of Brazil has stated that it supports the peaceful applications of space technology and denies any intention of developing a ballistic missile.

Link

Google "brazil icbm"

-kgj

This is kinda heading towards riding one of Laumer's Bolos, but...

If the military continues towards this line of thought, they're going to need individual detatchments or even vehicles to have some sort of remote sensing capability, such as semi-disposable mini RPV's for the tank platoons. They'd need to be rocket launched (either vertically or out of a TOW tube, possibly guided so it can arc towards its destination while still in boost) and deploy their wings and props or fans upon exiting rocket boost phase. Probably a mini-camera and a second sensor package, such as IR, thermal, or a mini low power radar of some type. They'd need a few of each type so they can put them up quickly or replace destroyed or lost units without time consuming payload switching.

The Navy had their Sea Ferret design, but put that on hold. It's a bit on the big side for an individual tank, let alone in multiples. The infantry have a few to choose from (such as the slow sailplane type called the Pointer), but none I am aware of are basically ready to use right out of the shipping tube.

This is kinda heading towards riding one of Laumer's Bolos, but...

If the military continues towards this line of thought, they're going to need individual detatchments or even vehicles to have some sort of remote sensing capability, such as semi-disposable mini RPV's for the tank platoons. They'd need to be rocket launched (either vertically or out of a TOW tube, possibly guided so it can arc towards its destination while still in boost) and deploy their wings and props or fans upon exiting rocket boost phase. Probably a mini-camera and a second sensor package, such as IR, thermal, or a mini low power radar of some type. They'd need a few of each type so they can put them up quickly or replace destroyed or lost units without time consuming payload switching.

The Navy had their Sea Ferret design, but put that on hold. It's a bit on the big side for an individual tank, let alone in multiples. The infantry have a few to choose from (such as the slow sailplane type called the Pointer), but none I am aware of are basically ready to use right out of the shipping tube.

> Thus far Iran is 100% within their rights, as far as refining uranium goes, not that that will stop war-mongers from using them as a boogey man to keep the American people scared. Not that it will stop Bush from invading them in his quest to get us all fricking killed. Bush would just love to invade because Iran would respond by launching long range missiles at our bases in Europe and we would have another world war on our hands, one we are almost certain to win, but that will keep him and his in power, kill off thousands of our soldiers, and make big profits.

That pot may boil within the next six months. Numerous Israeli officials have said that they will not let the Iranian reactor go on line, period. Several have said that the belive their window of opportunity for interdiction will close early next year. If someone doesn't say Iran's mind, something is going to happen. (And after watching what happened to Iraq, I doubt that anything is going to convince Iran that they don't want a nuclear deterrent.)

The difference between now and when the Israelis busted the Iraqi reactor is that Iran has missiles that they can fire on Israel in retaliation. Also, Israel may need to violate Iraqi airspace in order to reach the Iranian targets; if they do, and if the US does not intercept them, Iran and the entire Muslim world will think the US was an accomplice.

Would Iran retaliate against the US in Iraq? Sure we could beat their asses - but not at the stingy level of effort we've invested in the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions. This could get ugly.

100 Facts and 1 Opinion

by JUDD LEGUM

[from the November 8, 2004 issue]

Click here to download, circulate and distribute a PDF version of this article.

IRAQ

1. The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.

Source: American Progress

2. The Bush Administration sent troops into battle without adequate body armor or armored Humvees.

Sources: Fox News, The Boston Globe

3. The Bush Administration ignored estimates from Gen. Eric Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be required to secure Iraq.

Source: PBS

4. Vice President Cheney said Americans "will, in fact, be greeted as liberators" in Iraq.

Source: The Washington Post

5. During the Bush Administration's war in Iraq, more than 1,000 US troops have lost their lives and more than 7,000 have been injured.

Source: globalsecurity.org

6. In May 2003, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, stood under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," and triumphantly announced that major combat operations were over in Iraq. Asked if he had any regrets about the stunt, Bush said he would do it all over again.

Source: Yahoo News

7. Vice President Cheney said that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." The bipartisan 9/11 Commission found that Iraq had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks and no collaborative operational relationship with Al Qaeda.

Source: MSNBC , 9-11 Commission

8. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that high-strength aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," warning "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The government's top nuclear scientists had told the Administration the tubes were "too narrow, too heavy, too long" to be of use in developing nuclear weapons and could be used for other purposes.

Source: New York Times

9. The Bush Administration has spent just $1.1 billion of the $18.4 billion Congress approved for Iraqi reconstruction.

Source: USA Today

10. According to the Administration's handpicked weapon's inspector, Charles Duelfer, there is "no evidence that Hussein had passed illicit weapons material to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, or had any intent to do so." After the release of the report, Bush continued to insist, "There was a risk--a real risk--that Sa

So when is it appropriate to find fault? You brought up the Iraqi/hijacker figure; why is it ok to bring that up on its own? Is it only ok for me to bring up the draft statistic in a vacuum? I thought this to be a perfectly appropriate time, considering we're talking about this exact type of media issue.

And one side is "egregiously at fault"? How can you make that statement? That's based in your personal opinion. As I said, the media, the 9-11 Commission, the administration, and dozens of other sources have all said, repeatedly and numerous times, even starting in the days after 9/11, that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. This has been said over and over and over and over, and it's no secret. As to why, then, 44% of Americans think that "some" or "most" of the hijackers were Iraqi, well, yes, that's a problem. But you didn't really address the fact that it's been stated countless times that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi, that Osama bin Laden is Saudi, etc. What is your response to that? Can you cite any news organization or government source that has ever said the hijackers were Iraqi?

To me, the whole "draft" rumor mongering is what's more "egregiously at fault", if I were to compare the two.

Worry about a draft is entirely reasonable; the all-volunteer military is severely overstretched. "Stop-loss" is keeping people in the military longer than they want to be, and even with hefty bonuses, the Army isn't going meet quotas.

Yes, worry about a draft is reasonable; worry about any troubling situation is reasonable. What's not reasonable is the assertion that the Bush administration wants one or is secretly angling for it. Additionally, all branches of the military have variously announced that they're either meeting or exceeding recruitment and retention goals - no branch is behind. Yes, the "stop loss" programs were questionable, as it can be argued that it's a type of "forced" service, and additionally Guard and Reserve forces are being used inappropriately. But you're wrong about the Army: on 26 May 2004, the Army announced it was on track to exceed its retention and recruitment goals for this fiscal year. All other branches are in a similar situation.

I think what motivates people's unease is a gut sense of the numbers - since Dick Cheney gutted the military, we don't have the numbers required for an indefinite occupation of two countries. We're only where we are now thanks to an unprecedented callup of the National Guard and Reserves - if we need more troops, where are they going to come from?

This is the kind of argument I don't know how to respond to...on one hand, it's implied that we "don't have enough troops", ostensibly because not enough people are voluntarily joining, but in the next breath it's stated that Cheney has "gutted the military", as if we would otherwise *have* enough troops. But wait...I thought there weren't enough volunteers...which is it? I'm not trying to be insulting here, but that's where I have the problem.

You also ignored what I said about Kerry. Don't worry; everyone else does too. Problem is, they also seem to ignore what Kerry himself is saying. Kerry's plan for the "war on terror", as it were, would call for far, far more troops than would ever be committed by the current administration. For the record, I agree 100% with Kerry, and would vote for him in a second if I thought he could actually pull off his promises. His calls for escalation, meeting Al Qaeda on multiple fronts, 125,000 to 200,000 additional troops in Iraq, growing the regular Army by 40,000 to 60,000, etc...where are all of THOSE troops going to come from? Again, I *agree* with Kerry...I'm just trying to make the point that if we're "in danger of a draft" und

Look at the map here.And the article. Not too much cause for optimism.

Ever heard of Salman Pak? It was a terrorist training camp in Baghdad where Arabs were trained to hijack planes and blow things up. I guess Saddam didn't notice. And we know that Saddam had personally corresponded with Osama bin Laden, but I guess that's coincidental hogwash, too.

and the fact that Saddam didn't have any WMDs

Do you understand the nature of high-level decision-making? You should take a college management course.

Leaders don't have the luxury of being Monday-morning/armchair quarterbacks with 20/20 hindsight. The preponderance of evidence in the eyes of the whole world was that Saddam had WMD. That was why the U.N. Security Council leveled 17 resolutions against his regime. Saddam had waged genocide with chemical warfare before, and he would've used WMD again. The national and international objections to the liberation had nothing to do with the "question" of Iraqi possession of WMD, because there were no significant disputes about that issue.

Even if Saddam didn't have them, do you know what preemption means? I'm not going to fight this again. Read this thread.

The bottom line is: we are better off with Saddam gone. Our allies (our true allies) are better off with Saddam gone. Iraq is better off with Saddam gone.

The only people in the world who are not better off (in the short term) are countries like France, Germany, and Russia who were illegally raking in billions of dollars by abusing the U.N. Oil-for-Food program and selling weapons to Saddam.

Increasing our security is not an error. Abolishing dictatorships is not an error. Liberating millions of people is not an error. Incapacitating those who fund and aid terrorists is not an error. Fighting ideology of hate is not an error. Spreading democracy is not an error.

Why can't you people celebrate??? Unite with us and share in our joy. Why are you so angry? The United States has made fantastically wonderful, inspiring, historic achievements in advancing peace and liberty! What we've done is nothing short of miraculous (thanks be to the Lord Almighty). The results are great for the country and great for the world. This is success, not failure. There is nothing for Bush to apologize for.

So let's use the blimps now, until these come online.

Or, adapt and redploy the OTH-B.

The best reference is this Army Report. Its pretty vague about numbers, though there are some photos that show about a dozen Iraqis around the statue. But it does confirm that the statue toppling was the (spontaneous, not pre-planned as Indymedia paint it) idea of a US colonel who spotted the propaganda potential of the small crowd that were following the convoy combined with the journalists who were staying in hotels around the square.

The US military is twice as expensive per capita of citizens as even #2, France (itself 20% larger than #3, Saudi Arabia). The larger militaries benefit from economies of scale, as production/transportation of material have large overheads in these segregated military economies, amortized over larger forces recruited from larger populations:

Per capita military budgets:
Rest: $500B:6.4B people = $78
USA: $466B:0.29B people = $1606
China: $65B:1.3B people = $50
Russia: $50B:0.14B people = $357
France: $50B:60M people = $833
Japan: $45B:0.12B people = $375
Germ.: $39B:82M people = $476
UK: $32B:60M people = $528
Italy $20B:60M people = $333
Saudis: $18B:26M people = $692
SKorea: $168B:49M people = $327

Include Iraq and Afghanistan's $200B extra budgets (not including intelligence budgets, some secret, and other federal expenses that subsidize military contractors), and the US spends much more than the entire rest of the world, probably by 25%. That ~800B:y represents about 8% of our $10T:y GDP, which is itself about 30% of the total human product, so America's military represents almost 3% of the total human output (in dollars, an almost arbitrary measurement at that comprehensive scale, but that's all we've got). At about 5% of the population, we're way out of line.

Saddam Husayn remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point. Some indicated a resumption after Iraq was free of sanctions.

At least one senior Iraqi official believed that by 2000 Saddam had run out of patience with waiting for sanctions to end and wanted to restart the nuclear program.

The Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) beginning around 1999 expanded its laboratories and research activities and increased its overall funding levels.

As to actual WMDs, the UN found both small batches of weapons, and parts of weapons, in various places. (A dozen here, four there, etc..) Just one example of the nasty things they found: R-400 Anthrax bombs: 8 complete bombs (with anthrax filling) and components for 96 more. These were take

Regarding the pull outs, you're right, Kerry said (from the transcript) "if we do the things that I've set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months." That's putting a lot of faith that he can accomplish any better on the ground what has already been attempted since the turn over of power.

The Iraqi forces are being trained. How is that any different then what what is being done now? Does Kerry have some new magical abilty to train troops better then is being done by the military right now?

Bush has been trying to press that America is not an occupier but an enabler...although I believe his terms are more like, "we are bringing freedom and liberty to the Iraqi people" and that we are not occupier just as Kerry suggests. That being said though it's easy to say that and then have to perform actions to regain security in the reason and not be viewed as an occupier.

I hate to say it, but the "no real substance" comes from the Kerry camp as well as the Bush camp. They are not saying anything that hasn't already being said or attempted right now.

I think many ways the one thing that I hope to stress is that hind sight is 20-20. Bush pushed for going to Iraqi based on intelligence which was believed (by not only Bush, Kerry, all of congress, British Intelligence, Russian Intelligence, Europe, etc) true has since been shown false. Kerry voted to go to Iraqi. it can't be said it's alright for Kerry to say he was mislead and not give the president the same creedance.

I found that there were a number of mixed message by Kerry. An example of mixed messages is that they indicate they want to build a coalition to handle these matters in Iraq ( although there is some coalition already ) and then when it comes to Korea, he feels we should do it unilaterally and not include the coalition of the regional powers included in talks.

But then Korea is a sticky situation which basically involves North Korea (more specifically Kim Chong-il) trying to hold the international and Korea penisula hostage, seeking the international community (in this context this equals America) to provide ransom in the form of monitary relief put simple. Bush, in keeping with the "don't negotiate with terrorist" belief, does not agree with these methods. I beleive this type of tactic by North Korea is now starting to be formed in Iran as well...but that's a whole other issue. Does negotiating in such ways solve the problem or promote more such actions?

It's easy to say you can provide additional funding and difficult to do so with out taking from other areas. It's easy to take money from the public in the form of taxes and not expect the public as a whole to be able to continue to improving the economy without help. It's simple to say something...it's difficult to implement it.

Subs aren't only for battle (or even primarily, these days.) They're for spying.

Use a satellite, and they can see you coming. Use a plane, and they know you did it, which is useful info. A guy on the ground, James Bond style can't really carry around a sophisticated radio room full of eavesdropping crap.

Subs these days are being heavily modified to carry all kinds of spy gear, and even other subs to get even closer to the action. photo.

Of course, the thing to be spied on should be close to the coast or out at sea, for best results with this method.

Winning the war is different from winning the peace, as they say a lot these days, which is what most of your criticism is based on. The US Army/Marine Corps did their job, win the armed conflict.

• partly because they were ill-trained to do this particular job,
• partly because of hubris on the leaders' side who imagined the whole Iraq pacification thing to be a piece of cake, given the US' military superiority,
• and partly because of the general confused US Middle East policy that, all in all, doesn't appear particularly credible to large numbers of Arabs and that has succeeded in fanaticizing large numbers of them even more.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/laser .htm

Also, having been on an earlier Australian sub (Oberon class), late model Australian submarine (Colins class), British submarine and several US subs, I might be tempted to say no other nation in the world can compete with the technology in the US subs.

• India's cryogenic engine comes of age
• US acknowledges India's technical prowess
• India Launches Satellite Three Weeks After Abort

"In the Gulf War in 1991, the war in Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999, Depleted Uranium ammo was used....

And ended up making many many friendly Nato soldiers sick and numerous soldiers died of cancer. Thhis has been the cause of huge outrage in Italy, for example where it has been documented that about 12 soldiers died after having been exposed to the remains of DU ammo."

I am from Italy, and I follow closely military technology as well. In the case of the presumed cases of deaths from DU exposure, nothing conclusive was ascertained (transl: " we don't know").

Remember that we're talking about weapons here, and horrible as it may seem, there's an efficacy case to be made: if using depleted uranium ammo saves X lives at the cost of Y lives, where X>Y......

We could just dump our radioactive waste onto another country, ala depleted uranium munitions.

From http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mun itions/du.htm

DU munitions were first used in the Gulf War of 1991. A total of 320 tons (290,300 kilograms) of DU projectiles were fired by the US during the Gulf War.

US Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft fired approximately 10,000 30mm DU rounds (3.3 tons of DU) at 12 sites in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1994-1995. In 1999, they fired nearly 31,000 DU rounds (10.2 tons of DU) at 85 sites in Kosovo.

Coincidently, there has been an increase of cases of leukemia in both the Balkans and Iraq. Though, all reports from government organizations, international and domestic, discount any link between use of DU and increase of leukemia ..

Or

From http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/ira q/2003/09/iraq-030904-04092003185213.htm

Now, the [U.S.] Department of Defense says, 'Gee, we've spent $300 million and [conducted] 300 studies on this, and we just can't figure this out.' Well, then, we either have the most inept medical community in the [world's] military, or it is by design that they don't find the cause of this."

We could just dump our radioactive waste onto another country, ala depleted uranium munitions.

From http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mun itions/du.htm

DU munitions were first used in the Gulf War of 1991. A total of 320 tons (290,300 kilograms) of DU projectiles were fired by the US during the Gulf War.

US Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft fired approximately 10,000 30mm DU rounds (3.3 tons of DU) at 12 sites in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1994-1995. In 1999, they fired nearly 31,000 DU rounds (10.2 tons of DU) at 85 sites in Kosovo.

Coincidently, there has been an increase of cases of leukemia in both the Balkans and Iraq. Though, all reports from government organizations, international and domestic, discount any link between use of DU and increase of leukemia ..

Or

From http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/ira q/2003/09/iraq-030904-04092003185213.htm

Now, the [U.S.] Department of Defense says, 'Gee, we've spent $300 million and [conducted] 300 studies on this, and we just can't figure this out.' Well, then, we either have the most inept medical community in the [world's] military, or it is by design that they don't find the cause of this."

They have a huge amount of data in varried resolution. Most of it is available from multiple sources for free; however they have it all in one spot and all converted for their program.

What makes it truly great is the ability to add your own overlays directly over top of its data. Quite a spectacular product.

If you have it give this a try take a image of vegitaion [A] and overlay it over Iraq with at 30% transparency. Add a overlay that with the sunni / sheite population densities [B] and do the same.

KaPow! Data in context. Quite amazing really.

[A] vegetation will require some cutting and pasting... but the images you have w/ key hole are pretty good
[B] Religious groups

If you want to check them out they are here:
earthviewer

[ I dont' work for them, but I would ;) ]

Rocket-propelled grenades and artillery shells converted into roadside bombs (source1, source2, source3, source4.

Mere assault rifles are only minimally effective against the modern US army. That's not to say civilian gun ownership may not have other benefits, but the days of civilians with handguns and rifles holding off the troops of a tyrannical government are long gone.

Then: I said is that no matter the gun, it wouldnt really help you against one, much less a million

Well, considering it's a hell of a lot easier to hide a person than a tank, one of those weapons would actually be very, very effective against a tank. Especially if you have a bit of knowledge about the particular tank you're targeting. A couple of shots, and at the least, the commander is dead. Or, depending on the design, the engine. Whatever, it's your call.

More importantly, it probably wouldn'tbe a one-on-one situation...

And the million tanks is just kinda silly. I don't know of any tank you could buy for forty to fifty thousand dollars. That's a few orders of magnitude low, really. Really, it is.

The Republicans are trying to pin the blame on the Democrats, but according to an Utne Reader article this month it is the Bush adminstration that is quietly pushing for this.

It appears that the Selective Service system is gearing up for a new national draft, probably to be next spring. This draft is for both men and women from 18-25 but people with computer or medical training will probably be required to register them (and any new skills they acquire in these areas) until they turn 35.

Except for the issue of women in the draft (which Rep. Rangel included in the proposed bill to make it even more controversial), how has this changed from previous years? Are they really preparing for a "new national draft", or are you just saying so because you read the SSS's Annual Performance Plan? What exactly is it in the Performance Plan (and not Rangel's bill) that supports your claim?

The chances are the new draft ... there will not be deferments for college

There is also quite a bit on the resumption of the draft in Bush's "National Security Strategy" report dated Sept 20, 2002

Are you sure?

First, a few things to consider:

a) Seoul would be flattened, killing millions of civilians.
- How do you think the rest of the world would view us if we caused the death of millions of another country's civilians just because we're concerned about a possible future threat?
- How many people would curtail their business with the US as much as possible because of this ruthless disregard for other nations, throwing the most massive possible brakes on our economy?
- How many people would be tempted to turn a blind eye towards anti-US terrorism, or even donate money towards curbing a sociopathic superpower?
- How angry would China - the emerging other superpower - be that we'd nuked right beside their country? How likely would technology and materiel from China "accidentally" be "stolen" by anti-US terrorists?

b) North Korea has the largest Special Forces contingent in the world, with over 100,000 well-trained soldiers.
- With over a dozen tunnels dug to well behind the DMZ (see same link), how much of South Korea would remain intact?
- With that many guerrilla-trained fighters in highly mountainous terrain, how many tens of thousands of Americans would die invading and occupying the area?
- How many thousands of those Special Forces soldiers would lend their training and personal skills to anti-US terrorist groups?
- We saw the fear a single, poorly-trained pair could create around DC with the "sniper" killings; what about hundreds of Special Forces-trained infiltrators conducting operations inside the USA months or years later?

c) North Korea has nuclear capability
- How many American soldiers would die when the few nukes that NK has were used against concentrations of US forces?
- How many American civilians would die when NK nukes were given to anti-US terrorist groups?
- How many American civilians would die when NK nuclear technology and knowledge was shared with anti-US terrorist groups?


> The time to destroy an enemy is before they are strong enough to hurt.

It's far, FAR too late for that.

As a counter-weight to the continual cries of "diplomacy is useless!", consider the Cold War. The USA and the USSR didn't fight each other; all of their contact was (essentially) diplomacy. Yet the situation remained (relatively) peaceful, and eventually the danger went away.

Diplomacy clearly can work. We just need to realize that there's a world of options between appeasement and all-out war. This ain't a black-and-white issue, and you can't make a black-or-white choice and expect a good outcome.

That give you an indication of what the Bush administration's priorities have been?

No, it doesn't. The two numbers have nothing to do with one another, as the two conflicts are drastically different. Bush's motives aside, the numbers of troops committed to each theater of operations had nothing to do with the president's competence (or lack there of) and everything to do with the nature of those two disparate scenarios.

In Afghanistan, we were / are fighting against what were for all practical purposes, guerillas, with the assistance of experienced, but under equipped indigenous troops used to fighting in that particular environment. For the most part, we sent in troops and aircraft to break assist the locals in breaking the will of, or destroying the former controlling government / militia.

The strategy that was used was exactly what was called for: (Especially given the land locked nature and difficult terrain of the country) send in a limited number of elite units, aircraft, and Special Forces troops to train, and provide support to the locals in support of what would be essentially a revolutionary war. Then once the back of the enemy was broken and all you had was splintered resistance, use the elite and SF units you have in country to hunt for the remaining pockets of resistance. This is oversimplified, but true to the best of my understanding.

Iraq was a different scenario. When going into Iraq, we faced a standing Army. A standing army that had been demoralized and under-funded / under-equipped since a catastrophic defeat a decade prior, but we could not count on that to make the invasion a "cake walk".

The only realistic way to invade a country with a real standing army is with an army. Lots of ground troops. Use overwhelming force to take down the defenders as quick as possible, while incurring minimal casualties yourself. Then after the regime fell in Iraq, the problem turned from invasion to peace keeping. This we were unprepared for (In my opinion, we should have let the British handle peacekeeping (assuming they would be willing to undertake such a task in the first place), even if it meant putting U.S. troops under the command of a British overall commander. The Brits have much more experience in peacekeeping than we do (contrast the aftermath of the fall of Umm Qasr when the British took control there, to the chaos of the fall of Baghdad when U.S. forces entered). Bush's administration actually slashed the budget for training our troops for peacekeeping / peace-enforcing when he entered office, saying that it was a roll he didn't want our troops to perform. Then in late 2001, a report (warning, PDF) was published making a case for further cutbacks in peacekeeping related duties and training.), but it was still a task that needed massive numbers of troops. Especially given all the remaining resistance. Like it or not, our current task in Iraq is that of an Occupying force. Occupation takes lots of troops.

You can argue with the reasons for going to war all you like. You can even argue that perhaps we didn't think out our exit strategy as well as we should have (or at all). But to suggest that Afghanistan was deprioritized because of Bush's personal agenda is just silly. Fewer troops were sent, because fewer troops were needed for that particular conflict. There are PLENTY of things to pick Bush apart for without having to reach for things like that. ( ;

The army possesses component units including 11 corps, 49 divisions, and 19 brigades, some 560,000 troops, some 2,360 tanks, 5,180 pieces of field artillery, and 2,400 armored vehicles. Globalsecurity.org

The ARNG structure is as follows: 15 enhanced Separate Brigades, eight divisions, and three strategic brigades (31st SAB, 92nd SIB, and the 207th Scout Group). The ARNG also maintains two Special Forces groups (19th and 20th). The force composition of the ARNG is 52 percent combat, 17 percent CS, 22 percent CSS, and 9 percent table of distribution and allowances (TDA) units, typically state headquarters units.

The army possesses component units including 11 corps, 49 divisions, and 19 brigades, some 560,000 troops, some 2,360 tanks, 5,180 pieces of field artillery, and 2,400 armored vehicles. Globalsecurity.org

The ARNG structure is as follows: 15 enhanced Separate Brigades, eight divisions, and three strategic brigades (31st SAB, 92nd SIB, and the 207th Scout Group). The ARNG also maintains two Special Forces groups (19th and 20th). The force composition of the ARNG is 52 percent combat, 17 percent CS, 22 percent CSS, and 9 percent table of distribution and allowances (TDA) units, typically state headquarters units.