Closed Thread Icon

Topic awaiting preservation: Did we miss the start of Gulf War II? Pages that link to <a href="http://ozoneasylum.com/backlink?for=14116" title="Pages that link to Topic awaiting preservation: Did we miss the start of Gulf War II?" rel="nofollow" >Topic awaiting preservation: Did we miss the start of Gulf War II?\

 
Author Thread
Emperor
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist with Finglongers

From: Cell 53, East Wing
Insane since: Jul 2001

posted posted 03-03-2003 14:40

And so it begins:
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,906417,00.html

quote:
Britain and the United States have all but fired the first shots of the second Gulf war by dramatically extending the range of targets in the "no-fly zones" over Iraq to soften up the country for an allied ground invasion.



Expect:

1. Saddam to stop cooperating (destroying missiles, etc.) as the stretching of the 'no fly' zones increases.

2. A plane to be shot down in the next few weeks sparking the start of the war.

---------------
Previous discussion:
www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum17/HTML/000715.html
www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum17/HTML/000714.html
www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum17/HTML/000697.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

InI
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist

From: Somewhere over the rainbow
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 03-03-2003 15:02

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

Emperor
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist with Finglongers

From: Cell 53, East Wing
Insane since: Jul 2001

posted posted 03-03-2003 16:26

My main concern is that this is outside of the remit of the UN resolutions which established the no-fly zones - attacking surface-to-surface missiles and other targets seems specifically geared to clearing the area in preparation for a ground war.

The legal position is explained here (which clears up a few things for me - I thought it was a UN thing but it seems like the UK and US can make things up as they go along):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2490361.stm

The UK MOD have denied they are stepping things up:
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,906664,00.html

although this seems to be a contrast to what the US is saying:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2814385.stm

If you want to bet on how long Saddam will be stay alive/in power see:
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,906426,00.html

InI: A little harsh? Fancy expanding on your analogy with the Third Reich?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

St. Seneca
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: 3rd shelf, behind the cereal
Insane since: Dec 2000

posted posted 03-03-2003 19:57

I wish the world would understand that this Presidency, one that a majority of the American people didn't vote for, decided from day 1 that we were going to go to war to oust Hussein.

All the time since the decision was made has been about justifying, rationalizing, and ultimately legitimizing the war. Unfortunately for the administration, this is not swaying the veto-wielding powers.

however, hear me:

THE UNITED STATES AND UNITED KINGDOM WILL ATTACK IRAQ AND REMOVE IT'S LEADER FROM POWER.

The UN, France, Russia, China, WMD... none of that is of any consequence. In the end, the US will attack Iraq and then plant evidence of WMD when all is over if necessary.

If the President thought that France, Russia, and China were prepared to go to war against us to protect Hussein, you would see direct diplomatic contact with Iraq to solve this crisis.

So please, no more shock about the future actions of the United States with regards to blatant aggression towards Iraq until the next Presidential election when the citizens will democratically oust our own dictator.

Rinswind 2th
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Den Haag: The Royal Residence
Insane since: Jul 2000

posted posted 03-03-2003 20:59

"The president is dead, long live the president"

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 03-03-2003 22:51

This is intentionally off topic but

quote:
...one that a majority of the American people didn't vote for...

just so I feel a little better about you saying that, please tell me that you knew that a majority of the American people didn't vote for C*****n either. Please tell me you knew that and then please tell me you were just as outraged about that.

MW
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: 48°00ŽN 7°51ŽE
Insane since: Jan 2003

posted posted 03-04-2003 00:15

OK, time for me to demonstrate my complete ignorance of american affairs:

Was George Walker Bush declared president by a supreme court mainly consisting of people from his father´s administration?
Would William C*****n have lost the election if every last vote would have been counted by hand?

Please enlighten me!

InI
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist

From: Somewhere over the rainbow
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 03-04-2003 00:30

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

Raptor
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: AČ, MI, USA
Insane since: Nov 2001

posted posted 03-04-2003 00:35

MW: The president of the U.S. is not elected by having the majority of the popular vote. There's this little system in place (that I think is outdated, due to the quality of media now) called the Electoral College. Each state has, based on its population, a certain number of voters in the EC. If a candidate gets the majority of the popular vote in a particular state, then he wins all of those EC votes. The candidate with more EC votes becomes president.



[This message has been edited by Raptor (edited 03-04-2003).]

InI
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist

From: Somewhere over the rainbow
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 03-04-2003 00:44

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 03-04-2003 01:50
quote:
And Bugimus, feel free to stay out of this thread.

InI, huh??? The absence of slimies in that line has me worried. Please elaborate.

Suho1004
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Seoul, Korea
Insane since: Apr 2002

posted posted 03-04-2003 02:03

OK, InI, I usually stay out of these arguments, and I'm not going to comment on the issue at hand, but I will say that you definitely crossed the line with your last comment to Bugs there. What gives you the right to decide who can and cannot participate in a thread? You didn't even start this thread, so I can't imagine that you would claim it as "yours" (not that starting a thread would make it "your" thread anyway).

That just pissed me off. I, too, would be interested in hearing an explanation.

(Sorry for butting in like that, everyone...)

MW
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: 48°00ŽN 7°51ŽE
Insane since: Jan 2003

posted posted 03-04-2003 03:57
quote:
MW: The president of the U.S. is not elected by having the majority of the popular vote. There's this little system in place (that I think is outdated, due to the quality of media now) called the Electoral College. Each state has, based on its population, a certain number of voters in the EC. If a candidate gets the majority of the popular vote in a particular state, then he wins all of those EC votes. The candidate with more EC votes becomes president.



I vaguely remembered something like that (the structure of US democracy is part of our schools´ curriculum), but I was aiming for something else, so let me rephrase my question:

Would G.W. Bush be president if the supreme court, which at that time consisted mainly of people from his father´s administration, had not decided to stop/ignore the hand recount of votes in the state of Florida?

And I invite Bugimus, too , to give a clear yes/no answer to this question. Of course everybody is invited to elaborate on this subject, but I would like to read a yes or no as the first word of any reply to this simple question.

InI
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist

From: Somewhere over the rainbow
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 03-04-2003 08:26

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 03-04-2003 08:49

Hmmm...ok, back to the topic...

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the Special Forces, which have been covertly operating in Iraq, yet. I suspect that this 'upping' of the aggression has a lot to do with that...and the helicopter crash (which was, IMHO, a covert operation that ran into trouble...the cover story of running out of fuel...c'mon...don't believe that...how could that happen? Only if the two choppers were being used for training? Nah...doesn't happen like that, folks...the chopper could just have landed, in that case...). Normally, they use those choppers to get the troops in and out...extraction. I take it they ran into trouble...wouldn't be the first time.

But the Special Forces have been operating 'behind enemy lines' for some time now...I take it, that they are probably still looking for that 'smoking gun'...and other things (military targets, the oil fields, etc...)

And I think it is quite obvious, that Mr. Bush is prepared to go to any lengths, to get the war 'started'...and I don't think he particularly cares about UN resolutions...they are to be upheld when useful, otherwise to be discarded when not.

Suho1004
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Seoul, Korea
Insane since: Apr 2002

posted posted 03-04-2003 08:56

No need to go through e-mail, InI. I just think you may be reading too much into that statement there. I'm telling you the honest truth when I say that I hold no animosity toward you whatsoever. Whatever may have happened in the past happened before I arrived (I think, or maybe I was just oblivious), and I've never harbored any resentment toward you (and I've enjoyed our chats, infrequent though they may be, on Q). The "sorry for butting in" comment was just that: apologies for butting into the thread and not really contributing anything of value. I've got a complex about that, you know (despite the fact that I tend to do it in about half of my posts).

So I'll say it again: sorry for the off-topic stuff. As WS (who, in an amazing display of timing, managed to post in the few seconds between the moment that I opened the topic and the moment I hit the reply button) said, back to the show.

[Edit: While we're at it, I have to admit that my post was rather harsh for something that really had nothing to do with me. It's just that people telling other people to stay out of threads really sets me off--I'll have to work on that. So, hugs and apologies all around, and your next shock therapy session is on the house. ;-)]

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 03-04-2003).]

InI
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist

From: Somewhere over the rainbow
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 03-04-2003 09:04

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

St. Seneca
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: 3rd shelf, behind the cereal
Insane since: Dec 2000

posted posted 03-04-2003 16:19

Bugimus, frankly I am unhappy that the entrance of Ross Perot into the Presidential election handed the election to C*****n. I'm happy that C*****n won, I'm just unhappy with our election system.

Our system strongly favors a two candidate system. You vote for the person you want and whoever has the most votes wins. This doesn't fully express voter opinion.

What if it were a ranking system? People could have made Perot their first choice and then Bush their second choice and C*****n third. Then Bush would have probably won that election, but that would have more fully expressed the desires of the voting public.

Better yet, take it a step further and have the voters rank the candidates in the order that they would like them. Also have them make a list of candidates that the voter absolutely DON'T want to win. In our example, many conservative voters would have put C*****n as number 3 since he was the best the liberals had to offer. However if there had been a candidate vocally hostile to businesses and focused upon nothing but the environment, that conservative voter could put the eco-candidate's name on the "don't want" list.

We have the worst possible method of voting that there could be. Almost any other system would be an improvement.

Here's and article that I read sometime back that I've gotten my ideas here about. I went out and searched for it for you since it is well written.

http://www.sciencenews.org/20021102/bob8.asp


[This message has been edited by St. Seneca (edited 03-04-2003).]

xRuleith
Obsessive-Compulsive (I) Inmate

From: Brighton Beach
Insane since: Mar 2003

posted posted 03-05-2003 04:38

The only problem with that, would be the time it would take to add up all the points, as well that system could lead to many more errors, rember chads? This could be thrown off by one messy looking letter, unless your thinking about doing it electronicly, though that could be somthing hard to do. I do agree that our Electoral College system sucks, and we need a change. Maybe just switching to a plain "I want -insert candidate's name here- to be our president" would work, and putting it on a ballad, they obviously have to add up all the ballads to find out who won the EC for each state, it wouldnt be that hard to run on popular vote alone, I don't believe.

I'm going to the moon, I cant stand it here anymore.

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 03-05-2003 09:17

St. Seneca, thanks very much for the link. I just read it and it is very interesting. I'll consider some of these alternate methods and if someone comes up with a serious proposal down the road... who knows? It might just make sense to give it a try if it looks like we could get an improvement.

InI, I'm glad that was all just a misunderstanding.

Suho1004
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Seoul, Korea
Insane since: Apr 2002

posted posted 03-05-2003 10:16

Wow, that was a great article, St. Seneca. I never realized that voting was that complicated a thing. I mean, I knew that our current system sucked, but I didn't realize that there could be that many anomalies depending on which system you used.

While each of the alternatives (runoff, borda, approval) does have its quirks, I think any one of them would be suitable for the US, where we generally have two strong candidates and a weaker third-party spoiler. The anomalies in instant runoff, for example, only appear when preferences are fairly evenly distributed among the three possibilities--but that just doesn't happen in the US. Not anymore, at least.

I don't know which system would be the best, but I agree that any of them would be better than what we have now...

Moon Shadow
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Rouen, France
Insane since: Jan 2003

posted posted 03-05-2003 14:19

Major flaws in government arise from a fear of making radical internal changes even though a need is clearly seen.
--Darwi Odrade


Emperor
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist with Finglongers

From: Cell 53, East Wing
Insane since: Jul 2001

posted posted 03-05-2003 15:24

And while although a UN report suggested nothing had been done on the humanitarian front (as I mentioned in another thread) the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has held talks to start handing out $900 million worth of contracts to rebuild Iraq once the war is over:
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030303-426052,00.html

It sounds like we will be having new toys too:

1. There is much talk of the microwave weapons:
www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,896930,00.html

www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hpm.htm
www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020816-dew.htm

www.weeklystandard.com/Check.asp?idArticle=2209&r=qmchb

www.cdi.org/terrorism/new-weapons.cfm

http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=145 - some more links

http://superconductors.org/emp-bomb.htm - EMP bombs!! I say!!!! I shoud sue (or are they planning on dropping my over enemy territory? Thats surely not cricket).

2. The RAF have unveiled the Paveway bomb which can (wait for it) work when its cloudy - you'd think we Brits would be ahead of the world in cloudy bomb technology

www.raytheon.com/products/paveway/

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-12.htm

3. The Massive Ordnance Air Burst (MOAB) - a daisy cutter on steroids (21,000 pound, 9550kg, 7.5 tonnes) with satelitte guidance (so it is smarter than the daisy cutter - which is nice).

www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/27/1046064158694.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/newbomb030225.html

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=htairw - also mentions a 'flying plate weapon'

www.sltrib.com/2003/Mar/03032003/Monday/34527.asp - the acronym hasn't gone down well with some people

---------------------
I presume someone has asked the Iraqi people if they mind testing these (nd many other less headline grabbing) weapons? All so they can have 'As tested in GW II' stamped on them - I presume real-life battle footage goes down very well at arms fairs, etc.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 03-05-2003 21:50

I have just heard a report from Israel that the war basically has begun because there are 30,000 troops in Iraq now according to Israeli intelligence. Israeli citizens have been told to get their "safe" rooms ready today, not next week but today. Stores have been ordered to provide necessary materials to citizens for war preparation.

I have also heard that the threat of missile attack from Iraq is considered very small because of all the Patriot missile batteries as well as airborne anti-missile missiles deployed. However, there is a large concern about the drones flying under Israeli radar and being aerosol capable tremendously increasing risk to the population.

I understand that even a greater concern is attacks from Syria and/or Saudi Arabia should things escalate. The Saudis apparently have nuclear tipped missiles that can easliy reach Israel and even India and were supplied by Pakistan. The Saudis have gone on the record as saying they would not be the first to go nuclear but they would certainly be the second if it came to that.

According to the estimate of the report I heard, the war will begin officially this Sunday. The Sun in England has said it will begin on Friday.

I just wanted to get this written down as I just heard it on a radio program from a anti-terrorism expert on the phone from Jerusalem. I was listening to the Michael Medved radio program and he was doing a phone interview with Victor Mordecai.

I'm just reporting what I heard just to keep the info flowing here.

xRuleith
Obsessive-Compulsive (I) Inmate

From: Brighton Beach
Insane since: Mar 2003

posted posted 03-05-2003 22:09

Thanks for the info bugs.

I'm going to the moon, I cant stand it here anymore.

Emperor
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist with Finglongers

From: Cell 53, East Wing
Insane since: Jul 2001

posted posted 03-06-2003 00:18

Bugs: Thanks - worrying but not unlikely. Got any links to info on that?

Interestingly Tony Blair's pronouncements today have suggested there won't be a war without a second UN resolution but the US administration has been saying they will go it alone.

I asked a while ago who was supporting or opposing war without being largely driven by ulterior motives and I do believe Tony Blair sincerely thinks this is the best course of action (I think he has delusions of forging some kind of international statesman kind of role but he is doing it because he thinks its right) - I just wonder if he is going to rapidly see events running away from him and he gets pulled into a war without a second resolution which will cripple him politcially in this country.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 03-06-2003 01:01

Emps, I'll see about finding some links because as I said it was over the radio.

Does your PM require a second resolution whether it passes or not to get support from the public? Because it will *not* pass as the French and Russians have stated they will most certainly veto if a second resolution is brought to a vote.

Emperor
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist with Finglongers

From: Cell 53, East Wing
Insane since: Jul 2001

posted posted 03-06-2003 04:07

Bugs: The way things stand (as of the last opinion poll) if Blair gets a second resolution then he will carry the majority of the British people with him and avoid a major revolt in the party if he goes to war without the backing of the UN then he could find himself in real trouble (my guess is that he was hoping to coast the next election, agree to stand down soon after in favour of the Chancellor if he agreed to go along with the Euro and then shimmy into some kind of international statesmen position. At the moment I suspect he feels like that ground is set to open up and swallow these plans - if we had a credible opposition he could kiss it all goodbye but expect some kind of 'Real' Labour Party emerging closer to the next election to soak up the disgruntled and anti-war votes and cut his massive parliamentary majority).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 03-06-2003 08:56

I would hazard to guess, that a second resolution will not be brought forth before the Security Council, because of the 'promised' Veto from Permant members of the SC. Thus, the US will 'forego' the humiliation of submitting one, that will surely fail.

To the (surprising) info that Bugs posted, about the start of the war...I would be more than interested, to see that information...

Aha...looks like the Japanese know more than we do...take a look.

Did somebody from the Bush administration 'warn' the Japanese Ministry? Could be...

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-06-2003).]

Emperor
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist with Finglongers

From: Cell 53, East Wing
Insane since: Jul 2001

posted posted 03-06-2003 13:11

WS: Similar advice was issued by the British weeks ago so I wouldn't read too much into it

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 03-06-2003 13:33

Well...I've been hearing a lot of 'starting' dates for the War now, for awhile...kind of getting sick of it. I Would like to know, if it is really going to happen, when. Otherwise, stop the spreading of rumors. That is doing no good, neither for the citizens of a land, nor for the Economy.

Now, I do wonder why the Japanese decided to 'suddenly' issue such a warning...already knew about the British...but I think that had more to do with the Terrorist threat, than the start of the war (but correct me if I am wrong). I know that the Americans in the region also 'pulled out' awhile ago, as well. But the Japanese are not normally targets of terrorism...at least, not outside of their borders...so, maybe they did get some 'inside information'.

And the Russians are pulling out, as well...all signs of an approaching conflict...hmmm.

Though something more concrete would be nice.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-07-2003).]

« BackwardsOnwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu