106 replies to this topic

[Mind]

I voted yes...it will be possible to create a missile defense for the U.S. within 20 years (the first choice), but I do not think we will do it. The weapons of the future...5-10 years from now...will probably not be missiles, but viruses (computer and biological), matter/antimatter bombs the size of a marble or pea, powerful lasers, etc...

My solution for world problems (like escalating missile and missile defense build-ups) is to put more money into communication infrastructure. The main reason people fight is out of ignorance. The more intimate the contact between people the less likely there will be violence (on a large scale). National and religious leaders use propoganda to influence large segments of human society. They "use" their followers to commit acts of agression. More communication with the outside world will counteract and defeat propoganda. In essence we should force feed the internet to all the world. It may sound silly and naive but I feel it would pay great dividends.

Since we are talking about Iraq in this thread, I will re-iterate that people are being tortured and driven from their homes in Iraq and negotiations will only prolong the suffering indefinitely. We should go in for our own defense. We should go in to destroy WMDs. We should go in to establish a free and open democracy. We shoud go in to stop the torture and allow displaced minorities back to their homelands.

Another thing, mainly for you Lazarus, how can the U.N. maintain legitemacy when it allows brutal dictatorships to have veto power and chair committees? I think this is just ridiculous. We are giving legitemacy to tyrants when we let them into the U.N. We would be much better off calling for a world constitutional congress - NO TYRANTS NEED ATTEND. Tyrannies, Monarchies, Dictatorships, are so medieval, so backward, so immoral. I feel the world needs to start ousting dictators. Iraq is an easy target. Their soldiers are already trying to surrender. Then Iran, Syria, Korea...etc. Now I know that the rest of the world is going to see this type of strategy as American Imperialism, and this would be our main challenge, convincing the world of our "moral goals"and trying to get others to join in the freedom project. OK, so now I am really dreaming...I mean, who the heck in our government would be willing or forward thinking enough to take on such a task. I will at least give Bush credit for naming some of the "evil" countries. I might not have used the same terminology but I would sure let tyrants know we were not going to tolerate them anymore.

Also, Bob, I think one of the biggest threats to us in transitioning to a type 1 civilization is dictatorships.

[Lazarus Long]

My solution for world problems (like escalating missile and missile defense build-ups) is to put more money into communication infrastructure. The main reason people fight is out of ignorance. The more intimate the contact between people the less likely there will be violence (on a large scale).

Now we are talking! [!]
(pun)

This is not only something I agree with but have also been laying as the bulwark of "Constructive Engagement". There are no solutions possible that do not in fact address the underlying root causes of terrorism, and while a dictatorsip foments and causes terrorism but it in turn is also caused by many of the same root concerns like poverty, ignorance, fear, prejudice, and sustained accepted violence against elderly, women, children, ethnic minorities, and ironically, (because I think some of you will go ballistic on this) the environment.

Communication, especially as defined by "Free and Open Access" to a Global Exchange of Ideas and Opinion, as well as access to a growingly powerful database of Universalized Human Knowledge provides a forum for exposure and resolution for problems BEFORE they have become overwhelming and the tools with which to confront the issues.

I have raised the issue of Iran repeatedly because this country should be a test of this alternative approach as opposed to one that engages them militarilly first.

Iran is NOT historically an oppressive country and the level of oppression there is in part OUR fault. They have one of the very highest levels of education per capita, they have a real middle class, they have accesss to the internet and a history of democratic principles and more egalitarian treatment of women and children then many surrounding peoples, so it would seem we are overlooking a chance for applying an alternative strategy of constructive engagement in this regard.

The trouncing the Reform Movement got at the polls in recent elections was in direct response to US unilateral Policy as it has made that population feel threaened to rally around their flag.

As a separate point and it belongs also in the discussion about Iran more than Iraq or missiles is the legitimate question of can Theocratic government coexist with Democracy?

This isn't just a question of "legitimate government" which is another important question in and of itself but a question of compatibility of governmental systems in a modern globalzed world of trade and cultural exchange.

[bobdrake12]

As a separate point and it belongs also in the discussion about Iran more than Iraq or missiles is the legitimate question of can Theocratic government coexist with Democracy?

This isn't just a question of "legitimate government" which is another important question in and of itself but a question of compatibility of governmental systems in a modern globalzed world of trade and cultural exchange.

Also, Bob, I think one of the biggest threats to us in transitioning to a type 1 civilization is dictatorships.

Lazarus Long, Mind,

One of the reasons for a form of democracy, such as the Republic of the US, tends more towards the peace process rather than a tyrannical dictatorship will, is that the polictical leadership can be voted out.

It is my suggestion that we pursue a subject titled something like "causes of wars & how these causes can be reduced" by starting another topic.

What do you think?

bob



Trench warfare in World War I.



Hiroshima after the atomic bomb in World War II



"I don't know how man will fight World War III, but I do know how they will fight World War IV : with sticks and stones."

~Albert Einstein

Edited by bobdrake12, 12 March 2003 - 02:47 AM.

[DJS]

Many good points Mind. A few I would like to respond to.

I voted yes...it will be possible to create a missile defense for the U.S. within 20 years (the first choice), but I do not think we will do it. The weapons of the future...5-10 years from now...will probably not be missiles, but viruses (computer and biological), matter/antimatter bombs the size of a marble or pea, powerful lasers, etc...

I agree. The concept of nanotechnology (and its national security implications) is beginning to catch hold within the political establishment. I can only imagine the weapons the Pentagon is dreaming up with the technological concept of nano in their minds.

My solution for world problems (like escalating missile and missile defense build-ups) is to put more money into communication infrastructure. The main reason people fight is out of ignorance. The more intimate the contact between people the less likely there will be violence (on a large scale). National and religious leaders use propaganda to influence large segments of human society. They "use" their followers to commit acts of aggression. More communication with the outside world will counteract and defeat propaganda. In essence we should force feed the internet to all the world. It may sound silly and naive but I feel it would pay great dividends.

You are forgetting one thing. The states we have problems with aren't open societies. Enhancing the communications infrastructure is great, but repressive regimes like say--Saudi Arabia will filter everything anyway. The problem is not just communications, it is the political climate within which a society operates. I saw a news report the other day which pointed out that if you had watched their report you were now more informed then 90% of the Chinese public on China's military modernization. The openness of a society dictates the level of communication which is possible within it. Of course we would love to communicate with the people of Iran and North Korea more, but do you think their governments will let us?!

Since we are talking about Iraq in this thread, I will re-iterate that people are being tortured and driven from their homes in Iraq and negotiations will only prolong the suffering indefinitely. We should go in for our own defense. We should go in to destroy WMDs. We should go in to establish a free and open democracy. We should go in to stop the torture and allow displaced minorities back to their homelands.

All of this is correct. WHY HAS THE LIBERAL ESTABLISHMENT OVERLOOKED THE HUMANITARIAN ASPECT OF THIS WAR? FOR POLITICAL EXPEDIENCE.

Another thing, mainly for you Lazarus, how can the U.N. maintain legitimacy when it allows brutal dictatorships to have veto power and chair committees?

The UN can get away with what it does because people have always felt comfortable worshiping the golden calf. What we need is an international organization whose membership is predicated on the member states being actual democracies. Wow, what a novel concept, huh? All of this is discriminatory in the eyes of the internationalist, of course. For them, democracy is only one form of governance among many. We need to completely reform the UN, make being a democracy mandatory. If a nation wants to get into the UN who is on the border they would have to pass a few bench mark tests before they are allowed entrance.

[DJS]

1)  For a terrorist group or a developing country, a long-range ballistic missile is the least attractive option to attack the United States.

There is little incentive for a terrorist group or a developing country to use long-range missiles. Other means of delivery are less expensive, more reliable, and can deliver much larger payloads more accurately than long-range missiles.

First, missile defense is not just "long range ballistic missiles". The new missile defense program that has been put in place by the Bush Administration is meant to combat all threats posed by missile proliferation. Second, we are not only worried about a nation's use of ballistic technology, but the threat of its use. Allowing rinkidink rogue states such as North Korea to gain leverage over us because they were able to acquire second rate ballistic technology is insane and dangerous. By the way, have you heard of mobile erect missile launchers?

2)  Missile defense is not the answer.

Unfortunately, some are using September 11 to justify rushing ahead with defenses against long-range missiles. While the goal of defending the United States from every conceivable threat is understandable, national missile defense cannot protect us effectively anytime soon.

Do you have proof for your assertions?? No one is using 9/11 to justify going forward with missile defense. The Administration was going to reassess the direction of missile defense long before 9/11. However, missile defense would be effective in combating missiles fired off of erect mobile missile launchers on cargo ships. Therefore, it would be contributing to the war on terror.

3)  It’s the warhead, not the missile.

We must distinguish between the means of delivery and the weapon. Unless armed with a nuclear or biological weapon, a missile would have caused far less destruction than the hijacked airplanes aimed with pinpoint accuracy and carrying tons of explosive fuel.

As devastating as the attacks were, they could pale in comparison to the casualties caused by an attack using a nuclear or biological weapon. The United States should greatly expand its efforts to prevent this possibility, so in the future the world does not have to look back and ask what more could have been done to prevent an even bigger catastrophe.

I love how this guy uses the qualifier "unless". "Unless armed with a nuclear or biological weapon, a missile would have caused far less destruction, yadayadayada.." Do you think some one is going to shoot a long range missile at us without having it armed with something? What planet are you from?

We are working on new ways to detect nuclear and biological weapons attempting to be smuggled into our country. However, I fail to see why this would prevent us from confronting other dangers our nation is currently facing.

4)  True security requires international cooperation.

The US needs Russian and Chinese cooperation on a range of non-proliferation and security issues. Getting that cooperation will be easier if the US does not proceed with a missile defense program that Russia and China find threatening.

The technology needed for an effective missile defense system still doesn't exist, and likely won't be ready to allow deployment for several years, despite the administration’s plans to have a rudimentary system ready by 2004. Moreover, the system that is the furthest along will offer little or no defense, since it can be defeated by simple countermeasures.

You have proven by this statement your ignorance on matters of missile defense. Actually, by augmenting our national security with a missile defense system, we will gain more leverage over Russia and China. Creating uncertainty in successfully taking out predetermined targets would increase a nation's reluctance to engage in a limited nuclear exchange. Second, nations such as China and Russia are not stupid. They know that the missile defense we are developing is in its infancy and poses no current threat to their strategic retaliatory capabilities. Finally, Russia and China have never cooperated with our anti proliferation efforts, what makes you think they will start now? Why should we have to offer concessions to our national security in order to appease nations like Russia and China into going along with us on matters of proliferation?

Oh yeah, and the technology does exist. You are a liar. And simple counter measures can defeat a single missile, but redundancy can defeat counter measures. Are you familiar with the concept of redundancy? Or is the concept too inconvenient for your whole argument?

UCS is working to keep the country from making a costly mistake. We've prepared technical analyses. We've talked to scientists in other countries to understand their concerns about this program.

We've presented testimony before congressional committees, and we're meeting with congressional leaders and administration officials. We're making sure the press and the public understand what the recent and planned intercept tests do and do not show.

No thank you, I have my own technical analyses. If I need any supplemental I'll give you a call ) By the way, I know your agenda.

[Lazarus Long]

One of the reasons for a form of democracy, such as the Republic of the US, tends more towards the peace process rather than a tyrannical dictatorship will, is that the polictical leadership can be voted out.

It is my suggestion that we pursue a subject titled something like "causes of wars & how these causes can be reduced" by starting another topic.

What do you think?

I for one concur completely (no surprise there) and if I don't get a chance to start it feel free to Bob or anyone. It is afterall not a spinoff of this thread at all, it is the core issue from which numerous threads have in their turn really been spun off.

[DJS]

It is my suggestion that we pursue a subject titled something like "causes of wars & how these causes can be reduced" by starting another topic.

Undemocratic forms of government are the causes of war. I ask you this question, "Have we ever fought a major conflict against a democratic nation?"

[Lazarus Long]

The first major war this nation ever faught it instigated with hostile action against Canada. The war was the war of 1812 and while officially it was against England we are lucky they were busy with Napoleon or American history would be considerably different, and shorter. The British were satisfied with an object lesson and they burned down our Capitol in Washington DC and torched much of the city.

The second major war we ever faught was against the Republic of Mexico in 1846. We started it (disputed) and we seized much of the land that we are now complaining the people who originally had the right to inhabit no longer do. We did so by force of arms and with no legal claim.
http://www.pbs.org/k.../mainframe.html

The third time this Nation went to war was the most deadly in its history to date and it is when we tore ourselves assunder in our own Civil War and this was one Democratic People against another and has less to do with slavery then the propagandists of history spin on to it.

The fact is that your assumptions are wrong and we never even went to war to "Make the World Safe for Democracy" although we claimed that to be the case in WWI. We certainly weren't encouraging Democracy in Guatemala for the last five decades, or Nicaragua, or El Salvador, or the Dominican Republic under Trujillo, and if you want I can fill up a page with all the dictatorships this country has installed and maintained.

Your assumption is just wishful but blindsided by a lack of understanding of our history.

[bobdrake12]

The first major war this nation ever faught it instigated with hostile action against Canada. The war was the war of 1812 and while officially it was against England we are lucky they were busy with Napoleon or American history would be considerably different, and shorter. The British were satisfied with an object lesson and they burned down our Capitol in Washington DC and torched much of the city.

The second major war we ever faught was against the Republic of Mexico in 1846. We started it (disputed) and we seized much of the land that we are now complaining the people who originally had the right to inhabit no longer do. We did so by force of arms and with no legal claim.
http://www.pbs.org/k.../mainframe.html

The third time this Nation went to war was the most deadly in its history to date and it is when we torn ourselves assunder in our own Civil War and this was one Democratic People against another and has less to do with slavery then the propagandists of history spin on to it.

The fact is that your assumptions are wrong and we never even went to war to "Make the World Safe for Democracy" although we claimed that to be the case in WWI.

Lazarus Long, Kissinger,

I have included both of your posts under a new topic called Causes of War. I hope you join in the discussion there.

That way this topic can remain focused on Missle Defense.

Thanks,

bob

[Lazarus Long]

Thanks Bob, I think that is wise. We can move them entirely if Kissniger would like to clean up the thread. There are other possible posts that might be germane to copy/paste or move too. I just have a number a projects underway at the moment and have to get offline quick. I was obviously responding to his claim and yes it is not really on topic per se. I do think ths one should remain focused too.

[DJS]

April 4, 2003
The Un-Patriots
Still mad at missile defense.
John J. Miller

With the possible exception of Saddam Hussein, nobody's more upset about the success of Patriot missiles stationed in Kuwait than the enemies of missile defense here at home.

Alex Stone of The New Republic rips into Karl Zinsmeister for highlighting some of the Patriot's recent achievements, and especially for the observation that if missile defense can work in a theater operation then it can also protect the United States from intercontinental attacks. Stone calls this "remarkably disingenuous" and "so absurd it strains the imagination" — and he's plain wrong, for reasons the foes of missile defense should well appreciate.

Let's start with a quick review of the Patriot's recent record. By the end of March, Iraq had fired 13 missiles at U.S. and coalition forces, and only one of them came close to hitting its mark when it struck a shopping mall in Kuwait City and caused a few minor injuries. Of the rest, one blew up shortly after launch, three were allowed to crash harmlessly into the desert or the Persian Gulf, and eight appear to have been intercepted by Patriot missiles. (My source for this information is the Center for Defense Information — an organization that opposes missile defense.)

Stone reports the results this way: "The success rate of the PAC-3 [the most advanced version of Patriot, but not the only one deployed in Kuwait right now] is less than 50 percent — hardly something to write home about." I'm not sure how he arrives at this figure. Perhaps when a Patriot battery takes multiple shots at a single target, as is the standard practice, Stone doesn't give the Patriots full credit for success. In other words, if Iraq launches a missile and U.S. forces send up three Patriots in response, only the one that actually takes out the target is scored as a "hit." That's a success rate of 33 percent.

It's also the wrong way to look at the problem. Success should be determined by how many Iraqi missiles penetrate our defenses. By this measure, only one has gotten through, and it fortunately didn't cause much damage.

The Patriot's record is not perfect. In one terrible accident, a Patriot missile shot down a British Tornado fighter. Stone castigates Zinsmeister for failing to report this event, though Stone himself neglects to mention the fault may lie with a malfunctioning beacon on the plane. There have been two other troubling incidents as well: On Wednesday, a Patriot missile destroyed a Navy jet; on March 25, a Patriot radar locked onto an American F-16, but disaster was averted.

These are significant problems, and they need to be addressed in the coming months. But they are also solvable problems. The Army, which operates the Patriot system, will also want to review the missile's performance against its legitimate targets. Following the first Gulf War, it became clear the Patriots didn't hit as many targets as was originally believed. Part of the problem came from the fact that Saddam's Scuds were so poorly maintained that they broke up in flight. By the time Patriots reached them, they often didn't have anything to hit. What's more, much of this analysis was based on sketchy videos, which means it wasn't precise. "We won't ever have a totally accurate score sheet for the Patriot," Lt. Col. Rich Lehner of Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency told me last fall, referring to the Gulf War. It's also worth nothing that the Gulf War-era Patriots were actually built as air-defense missiles, and they were pressed into anti-missile operations — a different purpose entirely. And finally, we must acknowledge that Patriot was a political success: It kept Israel out of the conflict, even though it was sorely tempted to retaliate for the 39 Scuds that Saddam sent its way (killing two people and injuring about 200).

Stone is free to argue that we shouldn't allow the Patriot's recent accomplishments in a theater operation trick us into thinking that it means we've solved every problem associated with national-missile defense. And he's correct. Patriot missiles cannot defend the homeland against warheads launched from China, North Korea, and Russia. This will require anti-ballistic missiles that can operate at much higher speeds in outer space. There's also a growing appreciation for the importance of airborne lasers, which are currently in testing and, if deployed, would be able to target enemy missiles in their boost phase.

Yet the enemies of missile defense have long used the Patriot's performance more than a decade ago as a reason for not pursuing national missile defense. If the Patriots couldn't hit Saddam's clunky Scuds, they would say, then surely they can't hit the much more advanced missile of more capable adversaries.

That's not an entirely unfair point — it's certainly not "remarkably disingenuous" or "so absurd it strains the imagination."

Now that Patriots really do appear to be compiling an impressive record, however, couldn't Stone and the rest of the anti-missile-defense crowd at least acknowledge this — and be glad that we're saving lives because of it?

[DJS]

[quote][quote]January 28th-February 10th--Iraqi opposition in the North and/or West declares Independence.[/quote]

Whoooops gross exaggeration there huh, guess you need to better analyze the threat you face.[/quote]

It could have happened, it didn't. Can't I have fun in trying to prognosticate?

[quote][quote]
February 10th-February 25th--US forces are in place and US offensive begins. I'll predict February 22nd as the start of offensive operations. [/quote]

Here we are...

Get a grip...

It just isn't going according to plan. I suggest you rethink policy, strategy, and tactics..[/quote]

Did count on Tony Blair and Great Britain guilting the Administration into going back to the UN for "one last try". This stalled the onset of war by at least 3 weeks (along with the fiasco in Turkey). Being off by three weeks is not too bad.

[quote][quote]
March 1st--Oil fields and Scud boxes have been secured. Baghdad (and possibly Tehkrit--Saddam's home town) will be the only areas of resistance left. [/quote]

I think I will go out on a limb and suggest that not only are your dates far fetched as premature, more importantly so is your policy.[/quote]

Except for the three week delay my predictions have been dead on. Oil fields and scud boxes have been secured. The last areas of resistence will be Baghdad and Tehkrit.

[quote][quote]
March 3rd-April 1st--Baghdad falls and order is restored. Nation-building commences.

The time line for Baghdad falling depends on the US decision as to whether it will resort to urban combat or whether it will cut all power to Baghdad and lay siege to the city. This is the one really difficult decision the US has to make. [/quote]

This isn't just unrealistic, it is a false promise made to commit the People to a course of action that will have profound and grave long term consequences of commitment not a damn urban renewal. Nation Building begins in the Hearts of those defining the Nation.[/quote]

It is looking more realistic everyday (add three weeks for the initial delay and my time line is essentially intact). And what makes you think you can speak for the Iraqi people? The vast majority of Iraqis will be glad to be rid of Saddam. If you think other wise you are way off base. It's not going to be hard to curry favor with a population that has been repressed for so long. A little kindness can go a long way.

[quote]
Another unknown is whether the United States will push for a second Security Council resolution against Iraq. After the January 27th Inspections Report there is going to be pressure to allow the inspectors to have more time. The US is not going to allow this.

Instead the US will push for a resolution authorizing force. Opposition to authorization of force will come from Russia, China, France and Germany. A compromise will be reached in which the Security Council states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 1441. However no authorization for the use of force will be given. This allows the UN to save face.  [/quote]

[quote]While you had your position understood you failed to appreciate that the rest of the world would not follow in accord.  In other words your plans are...

Nooott gonna happen,...  jus not gonna happen...  

and it didn't go the way you planned at all.

Do you even have a Plan B?[/quote]

Hey Laz, guess what? It did happen.

[quote]
Mr. Kissinger deflects::

I ask you again. Who is going to stop us?
-------------------------------------------------------------
"War is never morally justifiable."--LL

I simply disagree.
[/quote]

[quote]Have you ever hunted?  How about big game?  Ever hunt without a gun?[/quote]

Deer, twice. Never big game or without a gun. I am proficient with a bow and arrow, but I have only used them on target practice when I was at camp. I think I could probably take out a deer with a bow and arrow. Especially in New Jersey where the deer have become used to the human presence and wouldn't run away with first sight/smell. I am not a master hunter if that is what you are asking.

[quote]If we were trapped in the jungle I would survive, would you?[/quote]

I would like to think so, but who knows. Jungles have all kinds of perils. If left in temperate woods I know I could survive. I was a Boy Scout until the age of 17. One of the regrets of my life is that I never made Eagle Scout.

[quote]Pygmies Hunters take down elephants and feed their tribes for weeks. They can do this with little more than a trick, a trap, and under the beast's own weight and inability to move too quick they find the soft underbelly of this great behemoth and sever its crucial blood vessels.  

This is our enemy's strategy.[/quote]

Yes, but elephants are relatively stupid (possessing only elephant intelligence), while Pygmies possess human level intelligence. It is not just the trap that is at issue, but the intelligence neccesary to create that trap and the lack of intelligence in identifying it as a trap. I think you give our enemies too much credit in creating some kind of grand strategy that will catch us unawares. We are more clever, and in a position of superior strength. And the reason we are in a position of superiority is because of our superior intelligence and innovation. Our freedom and free markets is what gives us that.

[quote]Knowledge really is dangerous and our enemy KNOWS US better than we know them.[/quote]

I simply disagree. I think most of the Arab world is ignorant as to the actual workings of the world. Their governments constaintly lie to them and distort reality. Plus they see everything through an archaic world view where Allah is in control of everything. How can they know us better than we do if they can't even get accurate information or access to reliable news sources?

[quote]Routinely I am forced to remind you that there is no moral justification for war, there is at best the expedient of defense for survival or the ethos of acquisition.  I am an ethicist and I do not confuse these two.  I would apply the surgeon's cold logic to cutting out the heart of an enemy that is resolute in plotting my destruction but I would not pretend that such wanton violence was "moral". It is at best, practical.[/quote]

Fair enough, war and morality do not really go together. You could make that argument. However, I would say one of the exceptions is self defense. If the situation is kill or be killed, then your hand is forced and your advesary essentially killed themselves by their actions. For the sake of public consumption, the flag of morality is often raised. Both sides (pro and anti war) are guilty of this.

And what about making the world a safer place? How can the world you invision ever happen if despots like Saddam are allowed to exist. This kind of societal cancer will not simply go away. Isn't it moral to elliminate elements of humanity that are counters to human progress? Should we just let problems fester when we have the ability to deal with them?

[quote]Your most apparent weakness of the study of history is very much your Achilles Heel.[/quote]

I thorougly enjoy history and considered myself to well versed in historical events. I may not have the depth of knowledge that you apparently possess, but I still know more history than 99.99% of the population. My point was simply that times change and advise given in the past is not always valid for the future.

Give me some time to respond to the rest of this post you made. I would like to answer it, but I am out of time for today.

Edited by Kissinger, 08 April 2003 - 07:46 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

Did count on Tony Blair and Great Britain guilting the Administration into going back to the UN for "one last try". This stalled the onset of war by at least 3 weeks (along with the fiasco in Turkey). Being off by three weeks is not too bad.

Miscalculating that your allies are this tenuous is not just deadly it is potentially disastrous and if you remember I didn't miss the issue at all and you overlooked it when I brought it up. Go back and check.

Except for the three week delay my predictions have been dead on. Oil fields and scud boxes have been secured. The last areas of resistance will be Baghdad and Tehkrit.

Nothing in my criticism rejects your implied objectives or sequence as incorrect, only the timing and "timing is everything." Only a few scuds have been fired, known sites have been hit, and many weapons are being abandoned but the fact is like those Chemical Katushkas targeting the airport found in the warehouse it is premature to be overconfident.

QUOTE  
March 3rd-April 1st--Baghdad falls and order is restored. Nation-building commences.

The time line for Baghdad falling depends on the US decision as to whether it will resort to urban combat or whether it will cut all power to Baghdad and lay siege to the city. This is the one really difficult decision the US has to make.

LL responds:
This isn't just unrealistic, it is a false promise made to commit the People to a course of action that will have profound and grave long term consequences of commitment not a damn urban renewal. Nation Building begins in the Hearts of those defining the Nation.

and Kissinger comes back with:
It is looking more realistic everyday (add three weeks for the initial delay and my time line is essentially intact). And what makes you think you can speak for the Iraqi people? The vast majority of Iraqis will be glad to be rid of Saddam. If you think other wise you are way off base. It's not going to be hard to curry favor with a population that has been repressed for so long. A little kindness can go a long way.

Only the lunatics and the real enemy are unhappy about seeing Saddam fall. But there are many among "his support" that are only sad that he hasn't fought harder and longer in their delaying action. He is either a hated friend or a tolerated enemy at most for groups even like al Qaeda. I am sure they will shed no tears in Tehran when Saddam's DNA is identified.

I have great hope in the principle of kindness and charity as it is applied rationally but this isn't about currying their favor, you can't "buy" loyalty.

The Administration is not at ease with any plan at all yet so your timeline and opinion as to how this will be accomplished and received is not out of the "ball park" but still over enthusiastic, disregarding of consequences, and belittling of them as well. By next week the death toll for our troops will go over hundred and everyday someone will get hit.

Plans are still being evaluated and compared, now comes the importance of those political bridges we've been burning; greed is only one element in the negotiation. Also we are more likely to be looking at a new Yugoslavia style internecine conflict then a "Reincorporated Iraq" modeled on a corporate merger of competing interest; though a Nationalist self awareness does exist. If we wear out our welcome we will not leave in any semblance of a victory.

However, I would say one of the exceptions is self defense. If the situation is kill or be killed, then your hand is forced and your adversary essentially killed themselves by their actions. For the sake of public consumption, the flag of morality is often raised. Both sides (pro and anti war) are guilty of this.

Yes I can agree and more over we have now set a precedent that legitimizes and supports the moral equivalency of their terrorist tactics. This could have been avoided if instead of behaving as a vigilante we have applied a priori the principle of Law better and gotten the "Warrant" first before going into the premises. Now all evidence is suspect and subject to rejection after automatic scrutiny.

Yes I apply the same "Principles" to others that I demand as my "Rights".

Yes, but elephants are relatively stupid (possessing only elephant intelligence), while Pygmies possess human level intelligence.

Pygmies don't consider elephants stupid. I would like to see you survive as well naked in the jungle as they do. And as a group that claims to listen and learn from trees I would suggest that you have very little comprehension about either the perceptions of the people you assume to know, or how they will choose to respond to events as they achieve some empowerment again.

I think most of the Arab world is ignorant as to the actual workings of the world. Their governments constantly lie to them and distort reality. Plus they see everything through an archaic world view where Allah is in control of everything. How can they know us better than we do if they can't even get accurate information or access to reliable news sources?

I disagree with you. Yes many people have a distorted image of one another but they receive a vast amount of information about us too. They have a view that is affected by getting refracted through a lens of fundamentalist culture but ironically we also do.

You assume we have access to a vast library of fact about them and this means we understand them, it is mistaken. They have less resources but a profound sense of learning they value coincident idea of Freedom and it is a mistake as even Wolfowitz asserts: "It is erroneous to think that Arabs are incapable of Democracy because of a cultural defect or deficiency".

It is also a mistake to think that numerous highly educated members of the elite enemy that have benefited from educations in such Institutes of learning as Harvard or Oxford do not have a deep and subtle grasp of their former host cultures. As I pointed out Iran HAD a successful Democracy UNTIL the conspiracy of the British and United States overthrew it in 1953. They have a complex love/hate relationship between their reformers and their fundamentalists but they are screaming for our intervention on either side. For what you don't grasp is that for every youthful reformer is a "father" somewhere they would be forced to kill to achieve another revolution. So many would rather allow domestic evolution to run its course and we are seen by the world and especially the region as attempting to force the situation and it wasn't unstable beforehand. Iraq is very different then Iran, or even Syria. And I wouldn't be trying to wear my laurels yet, we haven't rebuilt a democracy in Iraq yet either.

The Pentagon is talking turnover in Six Months and few consider this rational. Chalabi is under indictment with a warrant for his arrest in Jordan, and while the UN will end sanctions after the violence subsides they might arguably not give any of the billion dollar fund they have now, or participate in the rebuilding effort until the US steps back and out of the country. Many in the Neo-Con Administration are adamant against this, but Britain would prefer a return to multilateralism.

As the situation continues through a long hot summer and the battle for Baghdad is concluded I expect the true occupation to begin. It hasn't yet but the selective targeting of leadership that is the current popular tactic will alter combative methodology. I suspect that the focus now will shift to targeting our leadership with assassination. They have done so before and now I expect much more of an effort in this regard and I expect targeting of checkpoints will become bombed out boardrooms for commerce. At least the battle has been minimizing the effect on civilian populations.

Now I will go out on a limb and suggest what I would like to see. If they are going to engage the Fedayeen and Republican Guard ( I love the irony of saying that) that they will take them out neighborhood by neighborhood will strike across open parks and highway systems that segment off the areas with controlled "Kill Zones" established with tanks and various support mobile heavy weapons but then allow civilians a chance to depopulate the community into camps before going after the combatants house to house, street to street and back alley to back alley.

They will of course be scanning the "force marched refugees" for hidden combatants that is only SOP but this would reduce the devastation of people, though the neighborhoods they lived in will get destroyed in the onslaught, as bad as it will be, property can be replaced. The attacks will involve armored bulldozers, helicopter gunships, tanks, APC's, precision strikes from heavy and light bombers along with A-10 cover and light infantry mobile artillery (humvee's with mounted weapons) and prison vehicles. The odds are there will be a lot of ground damage to all areas fought in, numerous mines and boobey traps as well as cached weapons and hidden fighters. And as we have already seen it will end up hand to hand with bayonets in apartment halls and basement alleys. This is a combination of gang fighting, a hostage siege, a riot, and real war. What I have said all along is the time will be greater then is being explained to the public even when things go right and the level of fire fight has already been every bit as messy as I am claiming and only a fool would say different. Were those BM21 Katushkas abandoned by deserters saving their own lives instead of firing weapons that would have blown back with devastating effect on their own families?

Probably.

Were they there?

Undoubtedly.

Do you think there are more?

Could instead the weapons have been left to support the threat of switching to unconventional tactics" made by the Iraq Command the day prior to their discovery? Even your antimissile system would be ineffective in this case for taking out the kastushkas would still gas all below the drop zone of the spent rocket/warhead.

I think they gave us the airport so as to get a clearer shot at better targets, concentrated forces that can be targeted from numerous areas and be inherently more valuable to us like troop transport, material, and armor that is being transported. Securing that airport is going to take a while and even when we think we have we cannot let down our guard for even a second as to the possibility of prepared traps from beneath and within the facility.

I still know more history than 99.99% of the population.

Tragically I not only agree with you (and one reason I credit our conversation) but see this as a terrible cultural "Achilles heel" and directly related to the problem. The people we are trying to manipulate keep family histories as oral culture that dates back more than a personal millennium, and as peoples they are not ignorant at all of their past, they keep tribal blood oaths across generations. They are patient to find their targets of opportunity and their process of selection is one you need to understand to prevent, just as their motivations are ones you fail to understand.

I would say one of the exceptions is self defense.

Lastly this is an issue that will return to haunt us. The failure on OUR part to establish the threat diplomatically means that we can't rationally claim this to the rest of the world.

Intent is not automatic threat. Few in the world credit Iraq as having been a legitimate threat to our National Interest such that it justified the invasion. Our just saying so doesn't make it true.

Saying he has some WMD's doesn't credit the argument either and saying he was a bad guy is not even a relevant logical sequitor. If it was because we owed it to the Shiya & Kurds for our own past perfidity (unintentional or otherwise) that may be true but it wasn't the argument made before the world or any kind of "legal reasoning" that meets a standard of "juris prudence". Again we can't claim a defense of the "Rule of Law" if we aren't applying it while doing so. And "Self Defense" is not one that anybody that has studied the FACTS will find a good reason for what we have done.

It was true, but the world is a big place and there are still plenty of bad guys to go around and as you said Mugabe doesn't have much to fear from this administration. No one but hopefully the Iraqi people will find us a true "White Knight" and if we end up like "Richard the Lion Hearted at Acre then all bets are off, expect to get routed by Saladin.
Saladin & the Crusades

Hey Laz, guess what? It did happen.

QUOTE  

Mr. Kissinger deflects::

I ask you again. Who is going to stop us?
-------------------------------------------------------------
"War is never morally justifiable."--LL

I simply disagree.

Actually no it didn't happen. I was referring to the second resolution and it never happened at all and as for world opinion try taking a foreign vacation now. We invaded, we are seen as acting illegally even if we do collect evidence. Many treat it as "inadmissible" and we have fractured our alliances seriously as well as creating a "willing coalition in opposition".

I never said we wouldn't invade I said I hoped we would take the time to make it a "Justified Police Action" instead of one that has done real damage to our prestige. We are now a recognized and legitimate threat some serious groups are going to reevaluate even as we get busy with what we are about to try and accomplish.

When I have been threatened in the past by forces much stronger than myself personally I have moved events successfully to have the threat eliminated, often I caused their self destruction. I take threats seriously and don't harbor or tolerate thugs and bullies but I also bide my time, assess my opponent and maintain reasonable anonymity while doing so.

Give me some time to respond to the rest of this post you made. I would like to answer it, but I am out of time for today.

Take your time. I need to disappear for a while anyway.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 08 April 2003 - 06:43 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

QUOTE
Have you ever hunted?  How about big game?  Ever hunt without a gun?


Deer, twice. Never big game or without a gun. I am proficient with a bow and arrow, but I have only used them on target practice when I was at camp. I think I could probably take out a deer with a bow and arrow. Especially in New Jersey where the deer have become used to the human presence and wouldn't run away with first sight/smell. I am not a master hunter if that is what you are asking.

I asked because it matters a lot if you think your prey will hunt you back and in anyway threaten you. The biggest animal I ever got to take down by hand in a face to face confrontation was a Black Angus stud bull that weighed around 1600 lbs and he was running straight at me when we met. Two things occurred in a matter a second, first I realized that this terrified animal wanted to trample me to death, and then I understood how to manage both his fear and my own in reverse order.

My wife to be and I had been at her parent’s house and we were returning at about a 3:30 in the morning on a moonless foggy Madison night with a dense fog rolling in off Lake Monona and meeting it another cloud bank coming back upslope from the marshes of the arboretum. I was driving my beige ’76 Celica when out of my headlights appeared an apparition bigger than my car.

I was tired, but I wasn’t stoned or drunk, nevertheless I had to seriously question my reality for at least a second. I also made a point of steering clear of this onrushing mass of muscle and flesh and pulling off the road. Julie was sleepy too but when we stared open mouthed at one another we each knew by the startled stupid look we shared that we weren’t imagining it; and then out of the fog came the reason.

A few hundred feet behind the raging bull ran the farmer and his helper. I swear to God it was Captain Kangaroo and Mr. Greenjeans come to life. I saw a short rotund man being trailed by a tall lanky one who was striding along exactly fast enough to maintain a short distance behind the Bull’s owner who was screaming “STOP!!!” at the top of his lungs and no one cared. Julie and I began to get hysterical with laughter and I started to get out of the car. She looked at me as if to say: “You aren’t?” I said: “I am” and was gone.

A few months before we had been in Puerto Rico and while driving through Bayamon near a major shipping facility we saw a Brahman Steer get gunned down near the stockyards when he ran off instead of passively getting on a container truck. So I decided this particular animal shouldn’t have to die brutally that day just out of senseless fear.

I took off as fast as I could to catch the beast. Try taming a scared beast that weighs more than ten times what you do sometime and then come back and tell me an elephant is a stupid ruminant. As I passed the farmer and Mr. Greenjeans the huffing, puffy owner told me the animal’s name was Mr. Jeff; a minor sweet irony that makes it possible for me to never forget it because my father in-law is also a Taurus named Jeff.

I caught up to the animal faster than might be expected because the beast had a ring through his nose and the attached rope was trailing between his thundering gait. Only a fool would reach down there, so instead I kept matching his stride and looking to get ahead. After a few blocks of running with the bull down Lakeside Avenue I reached the head of the beast and began trying to get to know him.

We began to talk. I would say perfectly normal things like “calm down, it’s alright, relax I don’t want to hurt you” and he would turn his head and spit at me. It was necessary to break stride slightly to grab at the ring and he would shake his head and snort but just as I got my hand on the rope finally, a squad car comes whipping around the corner off Park Ave. in front of us and screams up to us with his bull horn and lights blaring ordering us to stop, which the bull did for about half a second; just enough time to swing his massive head out of my reach and charge off back the way we had just come.

I could only give the cops a scowling look that wordlessly said they were two of the stupidest people in the whole world and even they knew they had goofed on this one. They decided to get back in the squad car and chase us again because of course this had made Mr. Jeff take off like a bat out of hell with me in hot pursuit. The two of us rapidly ditched the cops because they got stuck picking up the farmer, his helper, and calling in for back up. After loping down the main street for while Mr. Jeff decided that he preferred greener pastures so he tore into Franklin Elementary School’s yard to get a better running surface than asphalt. Mr. Jeff and I had almost come to terms again when we exited out the other side of the school yard, where we picked up another squad car. Mr. Jeff shoved me out of his way, taking off into a back yard as both squad cars came to a screeching halt and the officers jumped out to pursue us both on foot into the yard.

Finally, Mr. Jeff found a fruiting apple tree there and got cornered so the cops got confident and then one of them took out his weapon. After him, so did the other one and I decided that they were going to kill this animal exactly like the time four Town of Madison cops had riddled a runaway that got free from the Oscar Meyer stockyard on the train tracks behind my house. They shot that animal over 40 times just for not cooperating. So this time I stepped into the line of fire and told both the cops and the animal to calm down. Mr. Jeff saw the guns and charged; smart stud.

One cop jumped the fence so fast I was sure he must have been standing on a spring board and the one in front of me decided discretion was the better part of valor and followed my lead. But while I dodged to the side the cop dove into the hedges. They were pretty pissed off but I quickly explained that the animal was just scared and then the farmer started pleading with them not to kill the beast because neighborhood kids had released the animal from his truck as a prank and it was he that had called them in the first place for help catching his wayward steer. The stud was worth tens of thousands of dollars, not to mention having champion genes. I told the cops to give me another chance and then I didn’t wait for their answer because Mr. Jeff was making tracks. The cops decided to be good natured about it all and began to appreciate the farce; they put their weapons away and started running too.

At first they kept pace and then one dropped off to coordinate with the other squad and the one keeping pace with me began to lag because he was burdened with his gear and old style radios. So by the time I caught back up to Mr. Jeff it was just the two of us again. I was worried that he would try and dodge through yards again as I had just chased him through three. I wanted a chance in the open so I was glad when he rounded his way back onto the main street to try and escape on the flat heading back downtown. Mr. Jeff tried to pick up his pace and I persistently dogged him. Finally I saw him put his head down and slightly lumber his gait, I could sense he was tiring. I took my chance and I sprinted ahead of him.

The move confused him because it was almost playful as two animals might race for fun but it allowed me to turn and face him as he slowed down to think about a response and maybe turn back the other way. This time I had measured and anticipated his move and was in arm’s reach of his ring before he could lose momentum. I grabbed it, pulled his head down low, began scratching his forehead and ears softly, kissed at him between the eyes, and whispered in his ears telling him I was his friend; he listened. I know he understood me because his whole demeanor instantly changed, the panic left his eyes and he looked into mine with content. Once I had a firm grip on his rope this massive beast became instantly docile because he sensed both my confidence and “my true caring” for him. He didn’t necessarily understand my language but he most certainly sensed “friend or foe” and my “fearless good will and affection.” Anyone with farming experience knows of what I speak.

This is a parable with a happy ending. Even though Mr. Jeff is probably long past being steak I suspect his sperm is still cryogenically available so the “old boy” is still even cranking out calves; he was a magnificent animal after all. He got to go back to the farm that night after his wild romp in the heartless city. Mr. Jeff was really just another “good ol’boy, doncha know”.

The point is that fear was the greatest cause of everyone’s problem that night and the solution came from overruling the fear itself and just because someone, or thing is a potential threat doesn’t mean they must act on it. Understanding and persistence can go a long way to alter seemingly inevitable outcomes.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 11 April 2003 - 02:35 PM.

[DJS]

That is quite a story, and it sounds like quite an adventure. I am no cowboy, however,

Revealing a little bit more about myself...

My father is (and my grandfather was) a horse trainer. As such, I am a decent rider and comfortable being around horses. Before meeting the love of my life, having a father who was a horse trainer was a great way to impress girls. Taking your date to the back stage area at the Meadowlands before a race and let her get up close and touch the horse -- you have already half sealed the deal lol .

My father is a working man's horse trainer, mind you (my father is not training Secretariats lol) . However, anyone who knows anything about the business will tell you that there is more skill in training qualifiers than training thorough breds. The reasons for this are numerous. First, the true thorough bred can not be bought and sold like most race horses because they do not run in qualifiers. They have individual handlers whose only job is to take care of that horse. If anything goes wrong with the horse, the handler has an extensive knowledge of the horse's medical history. Hence, a diagnosis is much easier. The trainer and the owner's only goal is to have the horse do well at the race and come home with a big pay day.

Training and racing qualifiers is a completely different ball game. There are different classes for qualifiers. These classes go by dollar amounts - $10K qualifier, $15K qualifier, $25K qualifier, etc. If a horse runs in a qualifier you can purchase that horse at the qualifier price. Inotherwords, if a horse runs in a $10K qualifier you can put down a bid on that horse for $10K. If there are multiple offers, then there is a blind bid and the horse goes to the highest bid. (This use to really frustrate me when I was younger because I liked to see a horse's progress and often a horse would get a bid placed on its right when it was getting over an injury or its time started to improve). You can place a horse in any qualifier you like, but if you have a horse that is at the $10K level and you place him at a $50K you are going to get clobbered and you won't make any money.

There are two ways to make money with qualifiers. You can earn prize money by having the horse "place" -- coming in 1st through 5th. The higher the qualifier level, the higher the place prize. First place for a $25K qualifier is $8K. The problem with placing is that if you place too often at a given level, your horse will get a bid placed on it and bye bye horse. So if your horse does well at a given level your goal would be to place him at a higher qualifier level. This is because of the second way you can make money with qualifiers, by buying low and selling high. Buy a horse at a $10K level and improve the horse, then race it in $25K qualifiers, have it do well and get a bid placed on it. Bingo, you just made a net profit of $15K for your effort (the equivalent of basically two 1st place finishes at a $25K level).

Of course, all of this is easier said than done. Horses are very complicated creatures. Physically, they are very powerful, but also very delicate. Because of the level of stress placed on their bodies, they are prone to strains, pulls, hair line fractures, and all kinds of skin rashes (especially near their joints)-- not to mention feet problems, they all have feet problems. And also, there is always the elicit practice of juicing the horses to get them to place well so some sucker will make a quick bid. This practice is illegal and plays havoc on the horse' body. My father looks at juicers in the industry as low lifes.

Mentally, horses have all kinds of personalities, intelligences, and temperaments. Some horse are mean animals, always pissed off, always looking to kick you. Some are so gentle that you could stand behind it and pull its tail and it would just try to move away from you.

Finally, there is competitive spirit. Some horses couldn't give a damn what place they finish in (these horses very rarely become champions). Other horse are very competitive. They can't stand to let another horse get ahead of them. Sometimes the jockey will actually have to hold the horse back so it doesn't tire itself out too early in the race.

I write all of this to illustrate just how complicated being a horse trainer is. It takes years of experience to be able to spot problems in a horse that would make bidding on it a losing equation. Or spotting a juiced horse, another skill that only comes with experience. My father possesses this kind of skill, he knows horses like the back of his hand. He would know if a horse was going to try to kick him even before the horse did. However, even with all of his expertise, that didn't stop a wild buck from tossing him into a metal poll in Indiana, breaking his back, making him bed ridden for a year, and nearly paralyzing him from the waste down. Which brings me to my point; you can know how an animal thinks, you can "soothe" an animal and calm it down, you can even "make friends with an animal". But you never, ever really know what is going on in that animals head and you can definitely never trust a wild animal.

All right, enough with animal metaphors. I know, Lazarus, that you do not approve of missile defense. However, if you want to check out a cool web page about laser intercepts, go to www.airbornelaser.com

[Lazarus Long]

http://in.news.yahoo.../137/239qa.html

U.S. Navy town shuns missile defense dome
Friday April 11, 4:28 AM
By Chris Stetkiewicz

SEATTLE (Reuters) - The coastal city of Everett, Washington, home to a sprawling U.S. Navy base, wants the Pentagon to find another site to build a huge floating radar dome that it says would be an eyesore and obscure waterfront views.

The dome, which would support the nation's proposed missile defense shield, would also hurt local businesses and pose a potential radiation threat, city officials said on Thursday.

Citing those concerns, Everett's city council on Wednesday voted unanimously to ask the Defense Department to choose one of five other proposed sites for the 250-foot high floating platform.

"We certainly support our country, but we are hoping they could find another location for this," city council President Arlan Hatloe told Reuters by telephone.

Local businesses said they would move away from Everett's recently refurbished waterfront if the dome came to town, wiping out any job gains it might bring with it, Hatloe said.

The X-Band Radar (XBR) dome will be built by defense contractor Raytheon Co. as part of a multibillion-dollar program to prepare to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles as early as next year.

The Pentagon is also considering Oxnard, California, Honolulu, Hawaii, and three locations in Alaska: Adak, Kodiak and Valdez, for the radar site. Another 10 land-based sites housing interceptor missiles would be built in Alaska and California.

LOOKING FOR A HOME PORT

Critics say the program is too costly and will not work, but the Pentagon has said it would offer a 90-percent chance of blocking a missile from North Korea by 2004.

Missile Defense Agency spokeswoman Major Cathy Reardon said the XBR dome, shown in concept art towering over the Everett-based aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, would be in port for no more than nine months before heading out to sea.

The deck of the floating platform would measure 272 feet long and 231 feet wide, with a 100-foot tall white bubble on top, Reardon said by telephone.

"It's like any other ship in the Navy. We are looking for a home port," Reardon said. "The problem with this vessel is that it's too deep to fit in some ports, but once it's out of the harbor it could be at sea continuously."

The Pentagon was looking into residents' concerns, but had not yet assessed the potential danger from radiation, Reardon said.

"Ultimately the decision will be made on what's in the best interests of the program, taking into account the reaction of the community," she added.

More than 6,000 people work in Everett either with the Navy or with companies serving the Abraham Lincoln and the port.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 11 April 2003 - 02:36 PM.

[Rational Madman]

Have you been paying attention to Star Wars Episode II--courtesy of the Bush administration? Is a 5 out 8 success rate a good beginning? What are the upper limits of Missile Defense's potential?

When deployed on a small scale, I think missile defense systems have the advantage of reassuring the population's of states vulnerable to ballistic missile attacks, like the neighbors of North Korea and Iran. But when deployed too aggressively, it's perceived by nuclear rivals like the Russians as an attempt to reduce the impact of their first strike, and thus, leaving the United States in a position of advantage. Which as a consequence, can either hinder attempts to reduce strategic nuclear arms, or at worst, revive the arms race. So in the end, I think the decision of the Obama administration was the correct one, but I'm also disturbed by the hysterical Russian treatment of the issue. I mean, we deployed only 10 interceptor batteries after all, which they absurdly treated as the beginning of an attempt to neutralize their deployable nuclear weapons. But I guess you sometimes have to concede to the hysteria of potential partners, and recognize that their fears have legitimate roots.