I Support the Troops

[vern_humphrey]

Richardols:

Like the Brits did with the IRA, maybe.

The IRA were nationalists, not nihilists or millinialists. The solution to the problem was to open up the political process and eliminate the discriminatory anti-Catholic measures by which Northern Ireland had been run for so long.

What precisely would we offer to Bin Laden and crew to get them to disarm?

But, my point was not that I’d want to live with the threat of terrorism, but that such a consequence was preferable to accepting the sort of “overwhelming force” that in “eliminating terrorism” would kill more people and destroy more homes and infrastructures than the terrorists would.

How many more 9/11s are you willing to accept? How about a dirty bomb? How about a nerve gas attack?

Also remember, the death toll under the Taliban and Saddam was not zero. They killed far more people than have been killed in this war.

 

[MikeWM]

vern humphrey:

You’re an expert on “cluster munitions” and depleted uranium, are you?

Tell us which civilian targets were hit with “cluster munitions” and depleted uranium.

Of course I’m not an expert, but I know what they are and the damage they can do.

It has been widely reported that they have been used. Short of all those reports - from lots of different sources - being lies, which seems unlikely, then they have been used. If you want me to draw you a map - well, obviously I can’t do that.

Mike

 

[Stu]

Richardols:

Stu, that’s the talk of a Jingo. If one believes that the war was wrong to start with, there’s no reason to get on the bandwagon or whatever afterwards.

I can understand that some of you support the war and Bush’s war aims. You have your justifications. You may certainly support the war in as good conscience as you can.

But those of us who in equal good conscience opposed the war and still oppose it have our reasons and need not change our opinion to satisfy you or the Administration.

Oh how sweet! You implied that I am a jingo. Since you are my foil in this case can I then imply that you are a traitor? Or would that too be nonsense.

Aside from your opening I agree with your sentiments. We aren’t going to change each other’s minds on whether going to war was the right course of action. My point is, and please address this sentiment, is that much of the dissent from the left has been irresponsible, over the line and does not serve to help us win the war now that it is started. I would think you agree quitting is not an option. Therefore we need to support the effort and see it through.

I wasn’t too please with how we went about getting involved in Kosovo nor going after OBL. However, that does not mean I supported all the talk about President Clinton just trying to distract the American people given his indiscretions/perjury. That too was irresponsible and only serves to show our enemy that we are divided.

I have no problem with dissent over the war but believe that it can be done in a responsible manner all while supporting our eventual victory. Problem is I haven’t even seen anything close to that from the most of those on the left.

 

[Stu]

vern humphrey:

What precisely would we offer to Bin Laden and crew to get them to disarm?

Our surrender and submission to Islam.

 

[vern_humphrey]

MikeWM:

Of course I’m not an expert, but I know what they are and the damage they can do.

So tell us all you know.

Just as an aside, while working a project for the US Army Chemical Center, I wrote the manual on dealing with Depleted Uranium. I also know what cluster bombs are – I’ve called in more than one air strike in my time.

MikeWM:

It has been widely reported that they have been used. Short of all those reports - from lots of different sources - being lies, which seems unlikely, then they have been used. If you want me to draw you a map - well, obviously I can’t do that.

Mike

Of course you can’t – you don’t even understand what these weapons are, nor how they are used.

This is a fine example of what I mean when I refer to irresponsible comments – with no knowledge of the subject, you want us all to believe something fantastic and untrue.

 

[MikeWM]

vern humphrey:

So tell us all you know.

Just as an aside, while working a project for the US Army Chemical Center, I wrote the manual on dealing with Depleted Uranium. I also know what cluster bombs are – I’ve called in more than one air strike in my time.

I don’t know all the details, and as you evidently know more than me, any attempt to expound my relative ignorance would be futile. I do know that they are dangerous and potentially cruel and indiscriminate weapons.

Of course you can’t – you don’t even understand what these weapons are, nor how they are used.

I don’t think I’d need to know that to know where they were used. I couldn’t draw you a scale model of an atom bomb, or details of every material used in one, but I still know they were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But admittedly, I don’t know where they were used, specifically.

This is a fine example of what I mean when I refer to irresponsible comments – with no knowledge of the subject, you want us all to believe something fantastic and untrue.

As far as I can see, all I have said is they were used. Is that fantastic and untrue?

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

MikeWM:

I don’t know all the details, and as you evidently know more than me, any attempt to expound my relative ignorance would be futile. I do know that they are dangerous and potentially cruel and indiscriminate weapons.

ALL weapons are dangerous. What’s your basis for saying these weapons are more “potentially cruel and indiscriminate” than any other weapon?

As far as I can see, all I have said is they were used. Is that fantastic and untrue?

Mike

What is fantastic and untrue is the conclusion that you ask us to swallow, that these weapons are somehow more “potentially cruel and indiscriminate” than any other weapon.

 

[MikeWM]

vern humphrey:

ALL weapons are dangerous. What’s your basis for saying these weapons are more “potentially cruel and indiscriminate” than any other weapon?

Cluster bombs:

The use of these weapons is hotly opposed by many individuals and groups, such as the Red Cross and the United Nations, because about 10% of the bomblets do not explode on impact. These unexploded ordnance act like anti-personnel land mines (which have been banned in many countries under the Ottawa Treaty) for many years.

From the Wikipedia. I could find a better reference, but it is 2am and I’m tired.

Depleted uranium:

The U.S. Army acknowledges the potential hazards of DU in a training manual, in which it requires that anyone who comes within 25 meters of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain wear respiratory and skin protection, and states that “contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption.”

(did you write that quote?

Wikipedia again. Same excuse, it’s still 2am.

It is clear these are more controversial weapons than some.

What is fantastic and untrue is the conclusion that you ask us to swallow, that these weapons are somehow more “potentially cruel and indiscriminate” than any other weapon.

I didn’t say anywhere they were more ‘cruel and indiscriminate’ than any other weapon. I was saying they were crueller and more indiscriminate than some other weapons, and there doesn’t seem anything fantastic about saying that.

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

MikeWM:

Cluster bombs:

Did they mention the dud rate on other muntions? CBU has a lower dud rate than many other munitions – including conventinal artillery and hand grenades.

If you are worried about civilians being killed with explosives, focus your attention on suicide bombers!!

Depleted uranium:

(did you write that quote?

It’s pretty close to a lift.

Depleted Uranium is DEPLETED. It is LESS radioactive than ordinary granite rock. The hazard is the same as with lead – heavy metal poisoning. Ingestion of DU over a long term – like a baby gnawing on lead-based paint – will produce deleterious effects on the body.

However, DU is used in anti-armor projectiles, which are used sparingly on the battlefield. It is only when a projectile actually hits armor and deflagrates that ash (which is the hazardous substance) is produced. As a matter of course, we collect enemy armored vehicles and clean them up (we have a use for them).

The hazard to civilians is almost non-existant – far less than the hazard of unexploded munitions, or trace amounts of nerve gas, which were detected in Desert Storm.

It is clear these are more controversial weapons than some.

Not among people who know what they’re talking about.

I didn’t say anywhere they were more ‘cruel and indiscriminate’ than any other weapon. I was saying they were crueller and more indiscriminate than some other weapons, and there doesn’t seem anything fantastic about saying that.

Mike

Nothing fantastic, other than the fact that it isn’t true – unless you want to compare them to bows and arrows.

 

[Stu]

Stu:

I wasn’t too please with how we went about getting involved in Kosovo nor going after OBL.

Should have read: I wasn’t too please with how we went about getting involved in Kosovo nor going after OBL under President Clinton.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Stu:

Should have read: I wasn’t too please with how we went about getting involved in Kosovo nor going after OBL under President Clinton.

Kosovo was a European problem, and there are plenty of rich, powerful nations in Europe. We should have told them what me sainted Irish Mither used to say, “Yer big and ugly enough to take care of yourself.”

If we had gone after Osama Bin Laden properly after the attacks on the USS Cole or the embassies in Africa, we would have prevented 9/11. Osama himself said that after the embassy bombings he knew he could to anything he wanted.

 

[Stu]

vern humphrey:

Kosovo was a European problem, and there are plenty of rich, powerful nations in Europe. We should have told them what me sainted Irish Mither used to say, “Yer big and ugly enough to take care of yourself.”

If we had gone after Osama Bin Laden properly after the attacks on the USS Cole or the embassies in Africa, we would have prevented 9/11. Osama himself said that after the embassy bombings he knew he could to anything he wanted.

I was assigned at Navy Headquarters when the attack on USS COLE went down. What really made those of us in Navy Blue upset was how the Clinton Administration treated that attack as something “illegal” vice an act of war. All the talk at the time about indictments and bringing those responsible to trial was off the mark. These people had just attacked a United States ship of State. The reaction should have been to hunt them down and either kill them or exploit them for intelligence.

Karl Rove’s recent comments regarding the leftist approach to terrorism was on the mark in my opinion.

I agree with you on Kosovo but I think here is the difference on how that disagreement was handled. Once the shooting started, everyone in the country (for the most part) was for us winning. I felt now as I did then in that some of the attacks on the Commander-in-Chief, though warranted given President Clinton’s deeds, were overboard and not helpful. I guess I just don’t like people taking “pot shots” at my Commander-in-Chief no matter who he is. Oh dear, I guess that makes me a “jingo” again for wanting respect for our leadership.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Stu:

I was assigned at Navy Headquarters when the attack on USS COLE went down. What really made those of us in Navy Blue upset was how the Clinton Administration treated that attack as something “illegal” vice an act of war. All the talk at the time about indictments and bringing those responsible to trial was off the mark. These people had just attacked a United States ship of State. The reaction should have been to hunt them down and either kill them or exploit them for intelligence.

Karl Rove’s recent comments regarding the leftist approach to terrorism was on the mark in my opinion.

We had a long history of ineffectual responses to terrorism. Al Qaeda was behind the bombing of the World Trade Center, the killing of Americans in Somolia, the bombing of the USS Cole and the simultaneous bombing of two embassies in Africa. Our feeble and whimpy responses TAUGHT them not to fear us.

I would think by now we would have learned that we cannot simply ignore terrorism, or “accept” it. We’re at war, and this war is as dangerous to western democracy as WWII.