Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Unconfirmed: Al Gore doesn't pay for his own carbon credits??

Global Warming Al Gore Carbon Footprint 2007

  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

#101 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 04:54 PM

^ No one in this thread said Saddam is responsible for "the burgeoning ranks of the jihadists." Providing support to Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war prolonged the war and quite likely resulted in more pain, suffering, and death being inflicted on Muslims during that war than would otherwise be the case.

ETA: Scherzo, what facts that tennyson brought up do you think will cause Muslims to take more kindly to what the US has done in the Middle East?

Edited by Solar Wind, 13 March 2007 - 07:10 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#102 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 06:50 PM

Hey guys - remember, post not poster. Let's keep it civil in here. It's easy to agree with a point of view that mirrors your own. The bit worth trying for is to understand another's point of view rather than just slam it, even if you disagree with them - the wisdom is in the understanding.

Let's stay respectful of the fact that we are all actual, real people on here, and be patient with one another.

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#103 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 09:35 PM

Quote

No one in this thread said Saddam is responsible for "the burgeoning ranks of the jihadists."
I'm afraid you did Sir. More precisely, our early support of Saddam during his conflict with the Ayatollah, was cited by Kosh as a factor in recruiting terrorists, and you quickly agreed. Before you deny this is the case...please remember this is more easily researched than most things.

Quote

Providing support to Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war prolonged the war and quite likely resulted in more pain, suffering, and death being inflicted on Muslims during that war than would otherwise be the case.

Hmmmmmm....I'm going to address my response here to Spectacles. I've known Specs for many years(long enough to have faced a real deal banning) and her posts here on this thread have me baffled, so I'm interested in some clarification if possible.

Specs do you honestly believe it's possible to string together words like the above quoted, and not have a severe anti-American bent? Is it possible to observe the events of the Iran/Iraq conflict, with the various countries involved in arming both sides, and arrive at the summation "America prolonged the suffering and death of Muslims", and still reasonably expect people to believe you're for this country? How do you think declaring "America prolonged the suffering and death of Muslims" plays among the potential jihad crowd? Is this responsible language to use in our current climate?

Specs if someone is going wildly out of their way to portray America in the worst light possible(and in some cases IMPOSSIBLE) and promote the idea that hositlity towards us is completely justified, every now and then someone's going to take some quality time to point out the obvious. This in no way means America is pristine and flawless and above criticism. But it shouldn't be all that hard to detect the difference between legitimate analysis, and outright propaganda. I'm pointing this out to you specifically because I know for sure you have a reasonable streak that you've accessed in the past.

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#104 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 12:25 AM

Quote

Providing support to Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war prolonged the war and quite likely resulted in more pain, suffering, and death being inflicted on Muslims during that war than would otherwise be the case.

Context is everything in history as is defining which groups you are talking about. The Gulf States alone provided more than $100 billion in loans to Iraq that went directly into building and maintaining his war machine because of thier fear of the spread of the Iranian Revolution. They obviously knew as much if not more about what was happening on the ground than the US but they did it for reasons they thought were justified at the time. So those Muslims saw a benfit in the war since it occupied and bled out revolutionary Iran.
Then the Soviet Union, France,China(China sold weapons to both sides), Italy, Brazil, Yugoslavia  and South Africa all sold weapons to Iraq, actual weapons, not just communications gear, medical supplies and intelligence. The Soviet Union even had hundreds of advisors and technicians in Iraq maintaining thier equipment. By comparison to the level of support all those others were giving the American aide barely registers and gets balanced out by the ill-fated arms for hostages deal with Iran that did involve actual weapons(TOW antitank missiles and HAWK SAMs in addition to spare parts).
Iran still holds a grudge not for our aide to Iraq, although it would probably see play in propaganda broadcasts just like a whole pile of other things but because of the Shah and because were were directly shooting at them when they tried to close the Persain Gulf to oil traffic. We sank nearly half thier navy then and accidently downed one of thier airliners because we thought it was an F-14. But those actions were cheered on in Kuwait because it meant the Iranians weren't going to be sinking or damaging anymore of thier oil tankers because we were escourting them. The same in Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the UAE not to mention Saudi Arabia whose leadership was deathly afraid of Iran ever since Shia pilgrims staged a revolt in Mecca in 1981.
But back to my original point, the Iran-Iraq War while only fought by those two nations sucked in a lot of nations to a greater or lesser degree. Even North Korea got into the act by providing advisors and Scud missile variants to Iran in exchange for hard currency. To single out the United States as uniquely responsible for it ignores the actions of all those other nations who did vastly more.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#105 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 12:36 AM

ETA: ^ tennyson, the point I've been trying to make is how US policy in the Middle East has increased anti-American sentiment in the region. Scherzo, has focused on on the Iran-Iraq war. Hopefully, reading this post will make it clearer what I've been trying to say.


View Postscherzo, on Mar 13 2007, 08:35 PM, said:

Quote

No one in this thread said Saddam is responsible for "the burgeoning ranks of the jihadists."
I'm afraid you did Sir. More precisely, our early support of Saddam during his conflict with the Ayatollah, was cited by Kosh as a factor in recruiting terrorists, and you quickly agreed. Before you deny this is the case...please remember this is more easily researched than most things.

Go back and look at the difference between what I denied saying and what you just posted. In your previous post, you said that I said that Saddam was responsible for "the burgeoning ranks of the jihadists." What I've been saying, is that the US has a track record of meddling in the Middle East with disregard for the people who live there and their well-being, and that this meddling has had the unintended consequence of giving rise to anti-American sentiment, which provides terrorist recruiters with a base of angry, resentful recruits. US support for Saddam, including during Iraq's war with Iran, provides several instances of this meddling, which I'll get to later in this post. Sometimes other countries besides the US meddled, but the US and the Soviet Union are the worst offenders among outside powers, and the US is the country that provides financial and military support for Israel. Muslims regard Israel as being a squatter on some of the land that's holiest to Islam, and they view Israel as being rather arrogant about it. By supporting Israel, the US puts itself on a steep uphill climb to win hearts and minds in the Middle East. Muslims chaff at Israel's possessing several of Islam's holiest holy sites, and consequently, US support for Israel increases the fallout when the US does things harmful to Muslims.

Scherzo said:

Quote

Providing support to Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war prolonged the war and quite likely resulted in more pain, suffering, and death being inflicted on Muslims during that war than would otherwise be the case.

Specs do you honestly believe it's possible to string together words like the above quoted, and not have a severe anti-American bent? Is it possible to observe the events of the Iran/Iraq conflict, with the various countries involved in arming both sides, and arrive at the summation "America prolonged the suffering and death of Muslims", and still reasonably expect people to believe you're for this country? How do you think declaring "America prolonged the suffering and death of Muslims" plays among the potential jihad crowd? Is this responsible language to use in our current climate?
I'll get to the first part of that paragraph in minute. For right now, I'll just say that once again, you've twisted what I've said. I suspect that it is because you have no response to what I actually write so you resond to what you wish I had written. You have yet to address any of my actual points or respond to the actual words in my posts. I doubt you're fooling anyone except maybe yourself. A terrorist recruiter would have little trouble coming up with incindiary words about US policy in the Middle East that make what I actually said (and even what you said) seem drab in comparison.

Quote

Specs if someone is going wildly out of their way to portray America in the worst light possible
I haven't done anything of the sort. I've been softpedalling my posts about American foreign policy so as not to needlessly piss off Americans who might read my posts and be persuaded that we should re-examine how we do foreign policy in the Middle East. Making a point as inoffensively as possible tends to be better at persuading people than pissing them off so much that they're no longer in a rational state of mind.

Quote

and promote the idea that hositlity towards us is completely justified
People don't need to justify hostility and few do. If someone kills your brother or sister, your reflex is to be pissed at them. You don't need to first come up with a rational argument about why you're justified feeling pissed at them.

Now, that I've corrected your lies and chased down your red herrings, I'll return to the Iran-Iraq war and then to my overarching point. Regarding the US's involvement in the Iran-Iraq war, you might find this analysis illuminating [you'll probably decry the author's agenda, but she cites her sources quite well]. The US provided Iraq with vital funding during the Iran-Iraq war. Yes, America wasn't the only country that engaged in the dispicable behavior of using the Iraqis and Iranians as pawns in a proxy war. Even so, America was still a major player, and terrorist recruiters will use that fact against us (see the first paragraph in this post for why they focus on us). For some reason, you've chosen to belabor this point regarding Saddam and the Iran-Iraq war. If you recall, I listed a number of other things America has done in the region to cause anti-American sentiment. To recap, the things I listed were propping up strongmen in the region [I didn't even specifically name Saddam at the time], transgressing on Muslim Holy sites, and this list. My point, which you've tried your best to distort beyond all recognition, was that the US has a history of meddling in the region, which has had the result of causing and then inflaming anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. Hatred takes a lot of energy to take form and be sustained, and the anti-American sentiment caused by the US's long history of ends-justify-the-means foreign policy in the Middle East gave bin Laden a base of recruits upon which to draw when he got pissed off at us.

Now, while the aid we gave to Saddam is only an implicit subpoint in the post of mine that started the tangent we're on now, since you take such an interest in Saddam, you should be interested in the following items from the list I linked to:
  • 1963: U.S. supports coup by Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) and reportedly gives them names of communists to murder, which they do with vigor.
  • 1973-75: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq. When Iran reaches an agreement with Iraq in 1975 and seals the border, Iraq slaughters Kurds and U.S. denies them refuge. Kissinger secretly explains that "covert action should not be confused with missionary work."
  • 1980-88: Iran-Iraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the U.S. opposes any Security Council action to condemn the invasion. U.S. soon removes Iraq from its list of nations supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be transferred to Iraq. At the same time, U.S. lets Israel provide arms to Iran and in 1985 U.S. provides arms directly (though secretly) to Iran. U.S. provides intelligence information to Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons in 1984; U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its navy into the Persian Gulf, taking Iraq's side; an overly-aggressive U.S. ship shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290.
  • 1988: Saddam Hussein kills many thousands of his own Kurdish population and uses chemical weapons against them. The U.S. increases its economic ties to Iraq.
  • 1990-91: U.S. rejects any diplomatic settlement of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (for example, rebuffing any attempt to link the two regional occupations, of Kuwait and of Palestine). U.S. leads international coalition in war against Iraq. Civilian infrastructure targeted. To promote "stability" U.S. refuses to aid post-war uprisings by Shi'ites in the south and Kurds in the north, denying the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and refusing to prohibit Iraqi helicopter flights.
  • 1991: Devastating economic sanctions are imposed on Iraq. U.S. and Britain block all attempts to lift them. Hundreds of thousands die. Though Security Council had stated that sanctions were to be lifted once Saddam Hussein's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction were ended, Washington makes it known that the sanctions would remain as long as Saddam remains in power. Sanctions in fact strengthen Saddam's position. Asked about the horrendous human consequences of the sanctions, Madeleine Albright (U.S. ambassador to the UN and later Secretary of State) declares that "the price is worth it."
  • 1993: U.S. launches missile attack on Iraq, claiming self-defense against an alleged assassination attempt on former president Bush two months earlier. [SW: Is this what we claimed?]

    Sources cited on the web page
There are a number of items on the list besides the ones dealing with Iraq. The list is not pretty. And the US has done these things in large part because it needs the oil in the Middle East. This brings us back to one of the main points in the post that launched this tanget: if the US got serious about cellulosic ethanol, hydrogen fuel cells, and other alternative fuels it would become much less reliant on foreign oil , and its need to do disgraceful things to feed its addiction would correspondingly decrease. And we could hopefully stop doing the things that feed anti-American sentiment and that make terrorists more likely to strike at us.

Edited by Solar Wind, 14 March 2007 - 01:23 AM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#106 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 01:15 AM

It's late and I'm tired but I wanted to comment on a few things,
1. Libya was claiming the entire Gulf of Sidra in direct violation of international law and the US was performing a freedom of navigation act.  They were off in the coast in the sense that that were a hundred miles out recognizing a roughly 21 mile limit recognized by international law, not the 200 miles out that Libya was claiming for itself.
The aircraft that attacked those F-14s in 1981 were Libyan Su-22 fighters who fired first. The F-14 responded exactly as the rules of engagement said they should.
In 1986 Libya fired Scud missiles at Italy that fell short of thier targets. The US responded by attacking legitimate military targets.
The bombing in the nightclub was as definitively identified as being Libyan backed as possible and what was attacked in 1986 were legimtimate military targets, Soviet supplied SA-5 surface to air missiles sites and Qaddafi's own presidential bunker.
I was going to mention Libya above but decided against it because it was a distraction but now I have to get into it. Libya was an expansionistic regional power that was trying to absorb Chad and the natives of Chad were rather grateful for our and France's support. If anything Libya is a much cleaner case for the US because thier suppliers were purely Soviet block and Libya falls more clearly into the Cold War battle.
As for that Afghanistan comment about when the aide started I don't buy it. I have seen the Congressional documents and I'd need to see the primary source that claims this before I believe an interview in another nation's publications.
As for the very first one, the US imposed a strict arms embargo on Isreal and did nothing to aide them and yet we are taken to task in it for something that to my knowledge no one at the time was aggitating, i.e. forcing Isreal to allow the displaced Arabs back. (Thier was no Palestinian identity then so calling them that then is ahistorical.)
Oh yeah and I find the 1958 entry to just be strange since I've always considered it a positive. Lebanon was in civil war and we came in as part of a peacekeeping force.

Quote

1970: Civil war between Jordan and PLO. Israel and U.S. discuss intervening on side of Jordan if Syria backs PLO.
I don't see this as a negative. Also, nothing even happened that involved the US.
As for airlifting weapons in to Israel during the Yom Kippur or October War, the Soviet Union did the same thing with Egypt and Syria and had been supplying the weapons that started the war in  the first place. Israel had been attacked during one of its holiest days, Yom Kippur when its defences were at its weakestand was fighting for its life. If that doesn't qualify as "being used in self-defense" I don't know what does.
As for Iran, yes we did get involved in the "Tanker War" quite directly because of oil. Both sides were attacking oil tankers and threatened to close the Persain Gulf. Then we offered to reflag Kuwaiti tankers to counter the Soviet offer and started escourting them out of the Gulf. The Kuwaitis loved us for it. Instead of being shoot up by Iranian speed boats armed with RPGs and automatic weapons and dodging mines laid by Iran they could travel through the Gulf unmolested. When a speedboat came at a tanker we tried to warn it off then if it peresisted in attacking we sank it. If a ship was caught laying mines then we took it and impounded it. When they started using thier derelict oil derricks as bases we destroyed them. When they sent thier most powerful warships against us we wrecked them. But we didn't take Iraq's "side." An Iraqi Mirage F1 sent an Exocet missile into our frigate the Stark, killing 37, that was how much we were on thier "side." We didn't preferentially let out Iraqi oil tankers in violation of the sanctions. The ships we protected were Kuwaiti. Each side was indiscriminately targeting oil shipping in the Gulf and if they went after the tankers we were protecting then we responded.
As for the Vincennes being overly aggressive, it thought it was dealing with an Iranian F-14 out of Bandar Abbas because it was reading the transponder of an aircraft there rather than the airliner. The command staff couldn't know a priori what was coming at them. If it had been an F-14 on an attack run with a Harpoon missile or other weapons then everyone on board could have died. The guy in charge made a call with the information he had and he was wrong.
As for the rest evaluating them would require primary and secondary source hunting that I won't have time to do until May when my thesis is done and I have something resembling free time again.

Edited by tennyson, 14 March 2007 - 02:09 AM.

"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#107 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 02:15 AM

View Posttennyson, on Mar 14 2007, 12:15 AM, said:

It's late and I'm tired but I wanted to comment on a few things,
1. Libya was claiming the entire Gulf of Sidra in direct violation of international law and the US was performing a freedom of navigation act.  They were off in the coast in the sense that that were a hundred miles out recognizing a roughly 21 mile limit recognized by international law
I doubt the Japanese would be thrilled if the Chinese conducted war exercises a hundred miles off Japan's coast, even if it is legal to do under international law.

Here's what the author wrote:

Quote

1981, 1986: U.S. holds military maneuvers off the coast of Libya in waters claimed by Libya with the clear purpose of provoking Qaddafi. In 1981, a Libyan plane fires a missile and U.S. shoots down two Libyan planes. In 1986, Libya fires missiles that land far from any target and U.S. attacks Libyan patrol boats, killing 72, and shore installations. When a bomb goes off in a Berlin nightclub, killing three, the U.S. charges that Qaddafi was behind it (possibly true) and conducts major bombing raids in Libya, killing dozens of civilians, including Qaddafi's adopted daughter.

Were the Scuds launched from the patrol boats? If not, wouldn't it make more sense to take out the missile launchers?

Regarding, the oil tanker wars, although it was Iraq that attacked the Stark, the US used the incident to blame Iran for escalating the war (link). So we did take Iraq's side, just not in the manner you were thinking the author might be referring to.


tennyson said:

As for the very first one, the US imposed a strict arms embargo on Isreal and did nothing to aide them and yet we are taken to task in it for something that to my knowledge no one at the time was aggitating, i.e. forcing Isreal to allow the displaced Arabs back.

Perhaps I'm missing something? The author wrote:

Quote

1947-48: U.S. backs Palestine partition plan. Israel established. U.S. declines to press Israel to allow expelled Palestinians to return.
According to the Jewish Virtual Library, "the United States vigorously supported the partition resolution." I think the author took us to task, at least in part, for 'vigorously' supporting the partition resolution. This brain-dead resolution and its boneheaded successors are responsible for a sizable chunk of the conflict in the Middle East. (Yes, other countries besides the US voted for Partition too; I wish they had come up with a better plan than one that displaced people and created a country where it was guaranteed to be surrounded by enemies.)

Edited by Solar Wind, 14 March 2007 - 09:23 AM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#108 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 01:47 PM

Quote

cited by Kosh as a factor in recruiting terrorists

I did not mention Terrorist.

What we are doing now, with the army in place, that will bring in recruits. Our support in the middle east has probably helped recruiting, but it's more about our support of Isreal that brings in recruits.
Can't Touch This!!

#109 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 03:20 PM

I'd love to let this go but...

SW said: "If we stopped meddling in Middle Eastern affairs, propping up strongmen in the region, transgressing on Muslim Holy sites, and doing lovely things such as the ones on this list (no reason to hate us there, nope, nope), the Bush Administration would slash the terrorists' base of angry, resentful potential recruits."

You said: "Everything Solar Wind said was true".
Then introduced Saddam as an example of a propped up US strongman.

If you're NOW saying you don't think supporting Saddam in the early 80's is a factor in recruiting terrorists, then you can't claim "Everything Solar Wind said was true".

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#110 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 03:40 PM

View Postscherzo, on Mar 14 2007, 04:20 PM, said:

I'd love to let this go but...

SW said: "If we stopped meddling in Middle Eastern affairs, propping up strongmen in the region, transgressing on Muslim Holy sites, and doing lovely things such as the ones on this list (no reason to hate us there, nope, nope), the Bush Administration would slash the terrorists' base of angry, resentful potential recruits."

You said: "Everything Solar Wind said was true".
Then introduced Saddam as an example of a propped up US strongman.

If you're NOW saying you don't think supporting Saddam in the early 80's is a factor in recruiting terrorists, then you can't claim "Everything Solar Wind said was true".

-scherzo




You do your best to twist things, don't you.

Proping up Sadam in the 80's probably had little effect. Meddling in the middle east now, as SW said in his post, is causing problems we don't need, like recruiting new people and slowing the Armies recruiting to a craw.
Can't Touch This!!

#111 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 04:06 PM

Quote

You do your best to twist things, don't you.
Nope. Just reading...then exercising basic comprehension.

Quote

Proping up Sadam in the 80's probably had little effect.
Why did you bring him up then? The clear implication is that our "propping him up" was a factor in terrorist recruitment.  
Unless, you simply didn't read SW's post carefully before purchasing your "Solar Wind for Prez" t-shirt.

Hope you kept the receipt... :p

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#112 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 05:13 PM

Quote

Nope. Just reading...then exercising basic comprehension.

Perhaps "you're overpaying your tutor". :whistle:

Sparky

Edited by SparkyCola, 14 March 2007 - 05:15 PM.

Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#113 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 05:23 PM

View PostSparkyCola, on Mar 14 2007, 05:13 PM, said:

Quote

Nope. Just reading...then exercising basic comprehension.

Perhaps "you're overpaying your tutor". :whistle:

Sparky
Don't you think a link to my original ZING is in order?

Might make you look marginally less lame.

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#114 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 07:25 PM

Hey, sorry if I upset ya scherzo, I was just kiddin' though :)

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#115 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 11:33 PM

Quote

Were the Scuds launched from the patrol boats? If not, wouldn't it make more sense to take out the missile launchers?

The missile launchers were among the shore batteries. The 1 Nanuchka-II class missile patrol craft that was sunk and the other damaged were within weapons range of the carrier group. I have an account of the incident but its in my friend's basement in storage with the rest of my stuff.
As for military manuvers the US conducts freedom of navigation exercises all over the world. They weren't war gaming off the Libyan coast. They were steaming through.

Quote

Regarding, the oil tanker wars, although it was Iraq that attacked the Stark, the US used the incident to blame Iran for escalating the war (link). So we did take Iraq's side, just not in the manner you were thinking the author might be referring to.

That link is wrong, the only nation that France ever sold the Super Etendard to was Argentina. Iraq was using the Mirage F1. It does seem reasonably good on the other details.

Quote

U.S. declines to press Israel to allow expelled Palestinians to return.
It seemed the author was refering to the Arabs exelled from Israel in the war since thier was no expulsion involved in the partition plan itself.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#116 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 12:33 AM

View PostSolar Wind, on Mar 13 2007, 10:36 PM, said:

ETA: ^ tennyson, the point I've been trying to make is how US policy in the Middle East has increased anti-American sentiment in the region. Scherzo, has focused on on the Iran-Iraq war. Hopefully, reading this post will make it clearer what I've been trying to say.


View Postscherzo, on Mar 13 2007, 08:35 PM, said:

Quote

No one in this thread said Saddam is responsible for "the burgeoning ranks of the jihadists."
I'm afraid you did Sir. More precisely, our early support of Saddam during his conflict with the Ayatollah, was cited by Kosh as a factor in recruiting terrorists, and you quickly agreed. Before you deny this is the case...please remember this is more easily researched than most things.

Go back and look at the difference between what I denied saying and what you just posted. In your previous post, you said that I said that Saddam was responsible for "the burgeoning ranks of the jihadists." What I've been saying, is that the US has a track record of meddling in the Middle East with disregard for the people who live there and their well-being, and that this meddling has had the unintended consequence of giving rise to anti-American sentiment, which provides terrorist recruiters with a base of angry, resentful recruits. US support for Saddam, including during Iraq's war with Iran, provides several instances of this meddling, which I'll get to later in this post.

I can add a link and a quote to this:

http://archives.cnn.....regime.change/

Quote

When Iraq attacked Iran in 1980 over a border dispute, the United States tilted toward Saddam -- secretly supplying intelligence to hit Iranian positions.

The relationship with Iraq was severely tested after Saddam used chemical weapons against Iranian forces and even gassed rebellious Kurds in the northern part of the country.

"Congress reacted, the public reacted, and this made it all the more complicated for the United States to continue its, its secret assistance to the Iraqi military," Tyler said.

Meanwhile Iraq had begun a secret program of its own: nuclear weapons. In 1981, Israel bombed and destroyed a nuclear reactor near Baghdad believed to be the foundation of the weapons program.

Both the United Nations and the United States denounced the preemptive strike. But the Israeli attack was only a temporary setback.

Iraq went on a multi-billion dollar buying binge, purchasing components for building a nuclear bomb from Western companies eager for cash.

Khidir Hamza headed Iraq's nuclear weapons program before defecting in 1994. He says Iraq used the cover of scientific research to purchase nuclear-related equipment.

"And you tell them you need equipment for research, and they tell you, "What kind of research?" And you make up a story," he said. "A good one.We are scientists; We can make good stories, and they buy it. They buy the story and they sell us the equipment."


Turning against Saddam
It wasn't until Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990, that the United States turned against Saddam. Iraq was now seen as big a danger to U.S. interests as Iran.

While it certainly didn't directly generate Jihadists, it certainly generated more bad feeling in the Middle East and completely alienated Iran, as several people have already pointed out. And it makes a strong point that our meddling in the Middle East has increased anti-American feeling (not the only instance).
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#117 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 11:28 AM

Quote

Unless, you simply didn't read SW's post carefully before purchasing your "Solar Wind for Prez" t-shirt

Nope, it's a Tatoo!! :happy:
Can't Touch This!!

#118 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 04:09 PM

View Posttennyson, on Mar 14 2007, 10:33 PM, said:

Quote

Were the Scuds launched from the patrol boats? If not, wouldn't it make more sense to take out the missile launchers?
The missile launchers were among the shore batteries. The 1 Nanuchka-II class missile patrol craft that was sunk and the other damaged were within weapons range of the carrier group. I have an account of the incident but its in my friend's basement in storage with the rest of my stuff.
As for military manuvers the US conducts freedom of navigation exercises all over the world. They weren't war gaming off the Libyan coast. They were steaming through.
Okay. Thanks for the information. What does the US military do during a "freedom of navigation" exercise?


Quote

Libya was claiming the entire Gulf of Sidra in direct violation of international law
This comment has interesting implications that didn't occur to me until after I had submitted my previous post. Do you think international law should decide what areas do and don't belong to Libya? If so, do you think that the same standard should apply to Israel?


Quote

Quote

Regarding, the oil tanker wars, although it was Iraq that attacked the Stark, the US used the incident to blame Iran for escalating the war (link). So we did take Iraq's side, just not in the manner you were thinking the author might be referring to.

That link is wrong, the only nation that France ever sold the Super Etendard to was Argentina. Iraq was using the Mirage F1. It does seem reasonably good on the other details.
You do have an eye for the details.

Based on what I know, I don't have any major problems regarding US involvement in the oil tanker war except that I would have preferred that we blamed both Iraq and Iran for escalating the situation or withheld comment. Regarding the shooting down of the jetliner, I hope that the US explained what happened with the transponders and took additional measures to avoid shooting down jetliners and other non-hostile aircraft in the future. Also, I wish that situations in the Middle East in which the oil supply was threatened had caused the US to take substantive steps to reduce dependence on oil rather than breathe a sigh of relief when each situation was resolved and then resume its ever increasing consumption of oil.


Quote

Quote

U.S. declines to press Israel to allow expelled Palestinians to return.
It seemed the author was refering to the Arabs exelled from Israel in the war since thier was no expulsion involved in the partition plan itself.
AFAIK (and I admit that most things involving Israel seem tangled and confusing to me), the Arabs who lived in the land ceded for the creation of Israel either had to get out, submit to Israeli rule, or fight. The Arab nations lost the 1948 war and so the Partition resolution led inexorably to the displacement of Arabs who didn't want to submit to Israeli rule but lived in what was now Israel. I think that the displacement of a large number of Arabs was an easy to predict consequence of Partition, and I suspect that those who formulated the Partition plan thought such a displacement would probably happen and went ahead with the plan anyway.

Edited by Solar Wind, 16 March 2007 - 12:31 AM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#119 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 11:42 PM

Quote

What does the US military do during a "freedom of navigation" exercise?

At its most basic level this consists of simply moving through an area that is in international waters according to treaty but whose associated nation claims more than they are are allowed by the United Nations Sea Charter. Each nation has a 21 mile territorial limit and then a larger "economic exclusion zone" that they have mineral rights to but don't count as thier territory according to this agreement.  Doing a freedom of navigation excercise means that they simply navigate through areas that are seen as international waters. It isn't a military excercise. They don't do war games or fire weapons or anything beyond what they would normally have active. Thier sensors are up and operational and they run the usual radar sweeps and Combat Air Patrol(CAP)s that they would anywhere else. The F-14s that were engaged in 1981 were on CAP.

Quote

Do you think international law should decide what areas do and don't belong to Libya? If so, do you think that the same standard should apply to Israel?
As far as a the maritime law I'm talking about absolutely. If Isreal claims more seabed than it should have according to the Sea Charter than they shouldn't get it like the British ships were stopped from poaching cod in Iceland's waters after some scuffles in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I think the area of land law is a steaming mess that needs to be cleaned up significantly before it would be useful to anyone. Maritime law was the first international law and it has a pile of precidents and treaties that really haven't been worked out for land territory. It is vastly more ad hoc.

Quote

Regarding the shooting down of the jetliner, I hope that the US explained what happened with the transponders and took additional measures to avoid shooting down jetliners and other non-hostile aircraft in the future.

The US did and this caused significant changes in the rules of engagement, massive soul searching and an effort to develop better, more capable sensors that wouldn't be fooled as easily. It hasn't happened again with ships but thier was an incident near the Northern No-Fly Zone in Iraq in 1996 where an E-3 Sentry Airbourne Early Warning and Control aircraft misidentified our own Blackhawk helicopters as Iraq and vectored in F-15s that shot them down. But massive efforts have been made since 1991 to reduce friendly fire deaths as well.

Quote

Also, I wish that situations in the Middle East in which the oil supply was threatened had caused the US to take substantive steps to reduce dependence on oil rather than breathe a sigh of relief when each situation was resolved and then resume its ever increasing consumption of oil.
We're in agreement. I wish we could hold enough attention long enough to work on plans until they reach fruition rather than have a few years of effort then have it drain away like what happened after the Carter years.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#120 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 16 March 2007 - 12:36 AM

View Posttennyson, on Mar 15 2007, 10:42 PM, said:

Quote

What does the US military do during a "freedom of navigation" exercise?

At its most basic level this consists of simply moving through an area that is in international waters according to treaty but whose associated nation claims more than they are are allowed by the United Nations Sea Charter. Each nation has a 21 mile territorial limit and then a larger "economic exclusion zone" that they have mineral rights to but don't count as thier territory according to this agreement.  Doing a freedom of navigation excercise means that they simply navigate through areas that are seen as international waters. It isn't a military excercise. They don't do war games or fire weapons or anything beyond what they would normally have active. Thier sensors are up and operational and they run the usual radar sweeps and Combat Air Patrol(CAP)s that they would anywhere else. The F-14s that were engaged in 1981 were on CAP.
This would put the US ships in a position to protect international shipping in the area, but assuming the nation claiming the area just waits for the US ships to leave instead of attacking them, I don't see how the exercise would ensure freedom of navigation beyond the period that the US ships are in the area.


Quote

Quote

Do you think international law should decide what areas do and don't belong to Libya? If so, do you think that the same standard should apply to Israel?
As far as a the maritime law I'm talking about absolutely. If Isreal claims more seabed than it should have according to the Sea Charter than they shouldn't get it like the British ships were stopped from poaching cod in Iceland's waters after some scuffles in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I think the area of land law is a steaming mess that needs to be cleaned up significantly before it would be useful to anyone. Maritime law was the first international law and it has a pile of precidents and treaties that really haven't been worked out for land territory. It is vastly more ad hoc.
That's a convincing distinction, IMO.

Edited by Solar Wind, 16 March 2007 - 12:38 AM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Global Warming, Al Gore, Carbon Footprint, 2007

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users