If you Believe the War is "Going Well" for the Coalition, you may not like this Thread . . .

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
"Dirty Bomb" Nukes ;)

*COUGH, COUGH*

That would also be pretty "UNconventional". :Q

"Dirty bombs" are not nukes. No nuclear reaction takes place. They just basically dump radioactive waste.

And since the benefit of a "dirty bomb" as a terrorist weapon is that the pollution stays around for a long time, there'd be no use using it against us since we're in their city. They'd just be polluting their own city.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah....a tightrope for sure. The actions taken by the U.S. in the post-war Iraq will be very critical.

But, if you look at Al Jazeera, they sure seem to be fanning the flames of unrest against the U.S. by reporting news from the Iraqi gov't at face value.
rolleye.gif
I really think Al Jezeera is doing US a "service" by showing more extreme Arab views . . . Actually, AJ is "quite tame" compared to more radical Arab views . . . they are "forewarning US" and we can be "forearmed" in the Propaganda War (and "Truth" Campaign to win the hearts and minds of the Arab world) IF we KNOW WHAT THEY ARE THINKING.

;)

I'd really hate to see AJ get shut down as they are the Voice of the Moderate Arab (now). We need an antidote to some of the sugar-coated nonsense we hear from Western Sources (use "counterpoint" if you wish for "antidote"). Believe-it-or-not, Al Jazeera thinks they are showing "remarkable restraint".

 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Originally posted by: apoppin
"Dirty Bomb" Nukes ;)

*COUGH, COUGH*

That would also be pretty "UNconventional". :Q

"Dirty bombs" are not nukes. No nuclear reaction takes place. They just basically dump radioactive waste.

And since the benefit of a "dirty bomb" as a terrorist weapon is that the pollution stays around for a long time, there'd be no use using it against us since we're in their city. They'd just be polluting their own city.
A dirty bomb or several can kill or disable millions in a big city - Chernobyl is an example of that type of poisoning - except this time it would be deliberate.

I don't think the coalition is stocked with radiation suits.

Remember, Saddam's INTenT may be to cause MILLIONS of Iraqi casualties in Baghdad and IGNITE jihad as the Arabs will blame US.

 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah....a tightrope for sure. The actions taken by the U.S. in the post-war Iraq will be very critical.

But, if you look at Al Jazeera, they sure seem to be fanning the flames of unrest against the U.S. by reporting news from the Iraqi gov't at face value.
rolleye.gif
I really think Al Jezeera is doing US a "service" by showing more extreme Arab views . . . Actually, AJ is "quite tame" compared to more radical Arab views . . . they are "forewarning US" and we can be "forearmed" in the Propaganda War (and "Truth" Campaign to win the hearts and minds of the Arab world) IF we KNOW WHAT THEY ARE THINKING.

;)

I'd really hate to see AJ get shut down as they are the Voice of the Moderate Arab (now). We need an antidote to some of the sugar-coated nonsense we hear from Western Sources (use "counterpoint" if you wish for "antidote"). Believe-it-or-not, Al Jazeera thinks they are showing "remarkable restraint".

That's the problem isn't it? The Arab press is so biased that the Arabs don't know the truth. They are being brainwashed into being the next wave of terrorists.

 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: apoppinI really think Al Jezeera is doing US a "service" by showing more extreme Arab views . . . Actually, AJ is "quite tame" compared to more radical Arab views . . . they are "forewarning US" and we can be "forearmed" in the Propaganda War (and "Truth" Campaign to win the hearts and minds of the Arab world) IF we KNOW WHAT THEY ARE THINKING.

;)

I'd really hate to see AJ get shut down as they are the Voice of the Moderate Arab (now). We need an antidote to some of the sugar-coated nonsense we hear from Western Sources (use "counterpoint" if you wish for "antidote"). Believe-it-or-not, Al Jazeera thinks they are showing "remarkable restraint".

That's the problem isn't it? The Arab press is so biased that the Arabs don't know the truth. They are being brainwashed into being the next wave of terrorists.
That is PART of the problem. Our "own" press is so biased we also don't know the truth about THEM and what they are thinking.

Brainwashing occurs in the West also. Our media has always minimized the ME situation and most of US were shocked by 9-11.


If we could OPEN both the Western minds and the Arab minds we be much less suspicious of each other.
 

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
I don't think the coalition is stocked with radiation suits.

Remember, Saddam's INTenT may be to cause MILLIONS of Iraqi casualties in Baghdad and IGNITE jihad as the Arabs will blame US.

If Saddam could convince the Arab countries that it was the US that polluted the city then you'd have a point, but who would believe that? Why would they believe that the USA would need to resort using a "dirty bomb" when we're already well within the city and gaining control of it? Besides, if we really wanted to destroy the city we'd use real nukes, not "dirty bombs". It seems most Arabs believe the US is trying to occupy Iraq, why would the USA want to poison the land they're trying to occupy?

It takes quite a while for the radiation in a dirty bomb (radioactive waste) to cause problems in people, so if we were exposed to it we'd simply leave the city. The people downwind of Chernobyl had lots of problems because they were eating food that was grown on contaminated land.

It wouldn't be anything like Chernobyl since a nuclear reactor's fuel is refined and highly radioactive. Spent fuel is not nearly as radioactive. Also, look at the amount of debris Chernobyl sent into the area compared to the amount that a bomb could hold.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: apoppin

That's the problem isn't it? The Arab press is so biased that the Arabs don't know the truth. They are being brainwashed into being the next wave of terrorists.
That is PART of the problem. Our "own" press is so biased we also don't know the truth about THEM and what they are thinking.

Brainwashing occurs in the West also. Our media has always minimized the ME situation and most of US were shocked by 9-11.


If we could OPEN both the Western minds and the Arab minds we be much less suspicious of each other.[/quote]
Blasphemer! :Q

:D

Seriously, yes, that is what needs to happen but how will that happen and how long will it take?

Will this planet one day be one understanding society whereby cultural differences are as acceptable as differing hair color?
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: apoppin

That's the problem isn't it? The Arab press is so biased that the Arabs don't know the truth. They are being brainwashed into being the next wave of terrorists.
That is PART of the problem. Our "own" press is so biased we also don't know the truth about THEM and what they are thinking.

Brainwashing occurs in the West also. Our media has always minimized the ME situation and most of US were shocked by 9-11.


If we could OPEN both the Western minds and the Arab minds we be much less suspicious of each other.
Blasphemer! :Q

:D

Seriously, yes, that is what needs to happen but how will that happen and how long will it take?

Will this planet one day be one understanding society whereby cultural differences are as acceptable as differing hair color?[/quote]
Like it or not we have to support the UN - or a single world government that makes binding decisions and enforces them to the benefit of the entire human family - not just a few.

And organized religion needs to be "curbed" from meddling in politics.

Strangely- this is what the Bible basically is prophesying - "Whenever it is that they are saying 'Peace and Security!', then sudden destruction is to be upon them . . . " [from God's War] - 1 Thessalonians 5:3. :Q

I am gonna have to drop out of this discussion for the rest of (most of) today . . . also, I suspect the Forums will slow to a crawl as the Forum is prepared for it's UPGRADE tomorrow AM.

Anyway, I wish US all the best . . .


. . . ok, flame on















Just KIDding!

:D
 

Loralon

Member
Oct 10, 1999
132
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Originally posted by: apoppin
"Dirty Bomb" Nukes ;)

*COUGH, COUGH*

That would also be pretty "UNconventional". :Q

"Dirty bombs" are not nukes. No nuclear reaction takes place. They just basically dump radioactive waste.

And since the benefit of a "dirty bomb" as a terrorist weapon is that the pollution stays around for a long time, there'd be no use using it against us since we're in their city. They'd just be polluting their own city.
A dirty bomb or several can kill or disable millions in a big city - Chernobyl is an example of that type of poisoning - except this time it would be deliberate.

I don't think the coalition is stocked with radiation suits.

Remember, Saddam's INTenT may be to cause MILLIONS of Iraqi casualties in Baghdad and IGNITE jihad as the Arabs will blame US.

Obviously, the exact effect of a radiological weapon would depend on what type of radioactive material is being used, how much of it there is, the size of the conventional explosive, and the prevailing weather conditions. The "millions killed or disabled claim" is a bit silly really. That scenario would be plausible if we were talking about a nuclear weapon, but not a radiological one. Also, coalition forces wear NBC (Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical) suits designed to protect them from nuclear fallout as well as other things like: VX, mustard gas, or Sarin.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Loralon
Originally posted by: apoppin


Remember, Saddam's INTenT may be to cause MILLIONS of Iraqi casualties in Baghdad and IGNITE jihad as the Arabs will blame US.

Obviously, the exact effect of a radiological weapon would depend on what type of radioactive material is being used, how much of it there is, the size of the conventional explosive, and the prevailing weather conditions. The "millions killed or disabled claim" is a bit silly really. That scenario would be plausible if we were talking about a nuclear weapon, but not a radiological one. Also, coalition forces wear NBC (Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical) suits designed to protect them from nuclear fallout as well as other things like: VX, mustard gas, or Sarin.
Again, even if it is minimized it would still be an ECOLOGICAL AND HUMAN DISASTER of the greatest magnitude - Chemical, Radiological and Biological poisoning. They could NEVER take those suits off. Massive decontamination. I don't want to THINK about it EITHER. ;)

However, it is possible - some analysts are saying "likely" - that Saddam will unleash (his entire arsenal available to him - by fanatical loyalists with nothing to lose, PREarranged long ago) when his defeat is certain, ALL his WMD inside Baghdad. :Q

HERE IS THE THREAD WITH ALL THE DETAILS: Saddam is Likely to Unleash WMD at his end. This is just my briefest "summary".

And I'll say again, I gotta drop out of my own thread . . . until tomorrow (I hope). :)
 

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Again, even if it is minimized it would still be an ECOLOGICAL AND HUMAN DISASTER of the greatest magnitude - Chemical, Radiological and Biological poisoning. They could NEVER take those suits off. Massive decontamination. I don't want to THINK about it EITHER.

NBC poisoning is certainly a bad thing, but you are grossly overestimating its effect and making it sound much more dreadful than it really is.

The effects do wear off, they aren't as wide-ranging as some "doom and gloom" analysts claim they are, and they don't stay around forever.

Let's not forget that hundreds, if not thousands of nuclear devices were tested in New Mexico and Nevada near Las Vegas. The effects do not go nearly as far as many people claim. If they did, Las Vegas would be a wasteland.

Let's also not forget that immediately after WW2, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt and those cities are thriving today.

Nuclear weapons and radiation are definitely bad things, but the effects are not nearly as dreadful as some people seem to think. It needs to be kept in perspective.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Originally posted by: apoppin
Again, even if it is minimized it would still be an ECOLOGICAL AND HUMAN DISASTER of the greatest magnitude - Chemical, Radiological and Biological poisoning. They could NEVER take those suits off. Massive decontamination. I don't want to THINK about it EITHER.

NBC poisoning is certainly a bad thing, but you are grossly overestimating its effect and making it sound much more dreadful than it really is.

The effects do wear off, they aren't as wide-ranging as some "doom and gloom" analysts claim they are, and they don't stay around forever.

Let's not forget that hundreds, if not thousands of nuclear devices were tested in New Mexico and Nevada near Las Vegas. The effects do not go nearly as far as many people claim. If they did, Las Vegas would be a wasteland.

Let's also not forget that immediately after WW2, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt and those cities are thriving today.

Nuclear weapons and radiation are definitely bad things, but the effects are not nearly as dreadful as some people seem to think. It needs to be kept in perspective.
Las Vegas is no comparison - no concentrated radioactive material released INSIDE that city . . . and cancers did result. We are talking about a MADMAN preplanning to kill and mame the maximum number of people for the live cameras.

Baghdad is HUGE and highly concentrated. I am NOT only talking about radiological poisoning - that's bad enough. The rest of his well-hidden WMD - conventional, biological and chemical. :Q

Go to the thread I linked. I know I did research on Dirty Bombs and it might be there. But I am saying it is MUCH MORE than "just a nuclear" threat.

Worst of all, Saddam just might escape in the confusion.

(OK, maybe I went a little far with that last one - but the "Worst Case Scenario" is real)

Aloha . . . ate logo . . . adios . . . buh-bye . . . chow . . . auf weidersein . . . hasta lavista . . .

:D



 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: apoppinI really think Al Jezeera is doing US a "service" by showing more extreme Arab views . . . Actually, AJ is "quite tame" compared to more radical Arab views . . . they are "forewarning US" and we can be "forearmed" in the Propaganda War (and "Truth" Campaign to win the hearts and minds of the Arab world) IF we KNOW WHAT THEY ARE THINKING.

;)

I'd really hate to see AJ get shut down as they are the Voice of the Moderate Arab (now). We need an antidote to some of the sugar-coated nonsense we hear from Western Sources (use "counterpoint" if you wish for "antidote"). Believe-it-or-not, Al Jazeera thinks they are showing "remarkable restraint".

That's the problem isn't it? The Arab press is so biased that the Arabs don't know the truth. They are being brainwashed into being the next wave of terrorists.
That is PART of the problem. Our "own" press is so biased we also don't know the truth about THEM and what they are thinking.

Brainwashing occurs in the West also. Our media has always minimized the ME situation and most of US were shocked by 9-11.


If we could OPEN both the Western minds and the Arab minds we be much less suspicious of each other.


Interesting contrast, the west minimizes the ME and the Arab press seems to blame every Arab problem on Israel and the US.

The ME with the exception of their two exports(oil and terrorists) is minimly important on the world stage. The US and Israel did not and are not the cause of the major problems of the region.

Nice try, but you can't escape those facts no matter how much you want to dance around them and try to put the blame on the West again.


 

Pocket

Member
Feb 26, 2003
89
0
0
Apoppin is right. The worst case scenario is that Saddam will unleash some sort of chemical, biological or nuclear attack on U.S. forces in Baghdad when he finally realizes that his regime is about to lose all power in Iraq. This WMD attack will surely leave thousands, possibly millions, of Iraqi civilians and US military members killed or wounded. Therefore, in order to avert this scenario, I think the United States should pull all forces out of Iraq, end this foolish notion of toppling a murdering regime, and just come on home. Leave Iraq in Saddam's hands (and lets not forget all those weapons of mass destruction he's planning to use) and try to solve our differences peacefully through the U.N. Heck, maybe if we give Saddam more time he will finally see reason and disarm. After all, we've only given him like 10 years and numerous warnings to do it.

I apologize for the obvious sarcastic remarks made, and I completely respect all anti-war beliefs (no matter how ignorant they may be). After all, America is the land of the free. How dare we try to give that same freedom to other nations??
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,910
238
106
Originally posted by: Marshallj
NBC poisoning is certainly a bad thing, but you are grossly overestimating its effect and making it sound much more dreadful than it really is.

Yeah, yeah, when you die the whole problem is no more. Seriously, Marshallj, you are full of sh!t to think the effects are temporal.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: etech

If we could OPEN both the Western minds and the Arab minds we be much less suspicious of each other.


Interesting contrast, the west minimizes the ME and the Arab press seems to blame every Arab problem on Israel and the US.

The ME with the exception of their two exports(oil and terrorists) is minimly important on the world stage. The US and Israel did not and are not the cause of the major problems of the region.

Nice try, but you can't escape those facts no matter how much you want to dance around them and try to put the blame on the West again.
The Blame DOES belong squarely on the West for supporting Israel unconditionally and its extreme IGNORANCE about the Arab world.

From 60 Minutes tonight:
Public opinion in the Arab world is overwhelmingly against the war, against the U.S. and among America?s allies in the region increasingly against their own governments. Nowhere is that clearer than in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan -- one of America?s closest allies in the Arab world.

?We are not a party to this war. Let?s establish that,? says Bassem Awadallah, a Jordanian government minister and close friend of King Abdullah. ?His majesty and the government have been very vehement about, about this, very vocal about this. We in the government are also as angry as the people on the street.?

King Abdullah of Jordan may be more concerned about the war in Iraq than any other leader in the Arab world. Having failed to convince President Bush to avoid war he?s been trying to minimize its impact on his tiny country. Sixty percent of his people are Palestinian refugees bitter toward the U.S. for its support of Israel and his economy is dependent on trade with Iraq.


Anti-War Anger In Jordan
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Has anyone a link reference that would give info regarding the spread rate of the various WMD and the delivery scenerios involved? I've looked briefly but did not see it.

I'm really worried about terrorist attack say in San Diego and how worried I should be a little bit north of there.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: HJD1
Has anyone a link reference that would give info regarding the spread rate of the various WMD and the delivery scenerios involved? I've looked briefly but did not see it.

I'm really worried about terrorist attack say in San Diego and how worried I should be a little bit north of there.
I just moved from SD back to the Cali hi-desert . . . fairly near 29 Palms marine base . . . (out of the frying pan and nearer the fire) ;)

Not certain if they are really "reliable" links - I am reading them currently - but do a Google search using "dirty bomb" and you will get a good place to start . . . for example:



How Bad Can a 'Dirty Bomb' Be?
Some see only a "minuscule" rise in cancer rates, while others predict that huge sections of New York or Washington would become uninhabitable if such a bomb were ever to go off.

All the experts stress that a "dirty bomb" is not the same as a nuclear weapon, which generates intense heat and radiation from splitting atoms, according to a statement from Rob Fanney and Jim Tinsley of defense watchdog Jane's Information Group. A dirty bomb packs radioactive material inside or around conventional explosives, which are then detonated to spread the radioactive material.

The radiation wouldn't immediately kill, Naval War College professor William Martel said. "But it'd create huge amounts of terror, havoc, and panic."

The most likely radioactive element in a dirty bomb is cesium-137, according to Phil Anderson, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. And the "consensus government view," according to a March report in The Washington Post, is that al-Qaida "has probably acquired" the isotope, which has a half-life of 30 years.

Cesium-137 is used to treat cancer and to maintain accurate atomic clocks. And it's created as a byproduct of nuclear reaction -- the splitting of uranium in a nuclear power plant, for example.

As cesium-137 "cools" from its radioactive to its normal state, the isotope emits gamma radiation, waves of ultra-high electromagnetic energy. These rays, while not as toxic as the heavier, alpha particle emitted by uranium, travel further, and are extremely difficult to contain. Only concrete, steel or lead can keep gamma radiation in check.

What's worse, cesium is the most "reactive" metal there is -- in nature, cesium's always found combined with another element. So the isotope becomes easily attached to roofing materials, concrete, and soil, said Fritz Steinhausler, who led the International Atomic Energy Agency's environmental assessment of the disaster at Chernobyl.

"The Russians tried to clean it up for years, and they eventually gave up. It just wasn't economically viable," said Steinhausler, who's currently a physics professor and visiting scholar at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation.

In Goiania, Brazil, four people died and more than 34,000 people had to be individually screened for contamination after a man in 1987 found an abandoned medical device filled with cesium-137 in a junkyard.

That's because cesium interacts disturbingly well with muscle tissue because of its chemical similarity to potassium, which muscles need to flex.

Fortunately, the body is used to processing these kind of chemicals, and excretes half of the cesium it absorbs within 100 days. (In contrast, radioactive strontium-90, similar to calcium, is absorbed into bone, and can take 30 years for the body to get rid of half.) But the absorbed cesium "would nevertheless cause a radiation dose, potentially increasing the risk for cancer," Steinhausler said.

The risk is actually pretty minimal, replied Steve Koonin, a physics professor at the California Institute of Technology.

"Long exposure to low-level gamma radiation, if you do the numbers, produces a miniscule increase in cancer rates -- one extra cancer per 100,000 people," he said.

Members of the Federation of American Scientists paint a much darker picture.

If a relatively tiny "dirty bomb" -- one containing only ten pounds of TNT and pea-sized amount of cesium-137 -- were detonated in Washington, federation scientists recently told Congress, "The initial passing of the radioactive cloud would be relatively harmless, and no one would have to evacuate immediately."

"However," the scientists continued, "residents of an area of about five city blocks ... would have a one-in-a-thousand chance of getting cancer. A swath about one mile long covering an area of forty city blocks would exceed EPA contamination limits, with remaining residents having a one-in-ten thousand chance of getting cancer. If decontamination were not possible, these areas would have to be abandoned for decades."

In February, a missing medical gauge containing exactly this amount of cesium-137 was discovered in a North Carolina scrap yard. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it receives nearly 300 reports of lost or stolen radioactive materials every year.
:Q



 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Quote
The Blame DOES belong squarely on the West for supporting Israel unconditionally and its extreme IGNORANCE about the Arab world.



True, but is the fact that they are a democratic nation mandate our unconditional support considering the area around them. Our creedo to support any nation in persuit of freedom (democracy). It seems to me, that may be part of the underlying reasons to stabilize the area. It just started with Iraq. I suppose this may mean that we will find other reasons to stabilize other nations in the area. Is that the goal?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76

I'm really worried about terrorist attack say in San Diego and how worried I should be a little bit north of there.[/quote]I just moved from SD back to the Cali hi-desert . . . fairly near 29 Palms marine base . . . (out of the frying pan and nearer the fire) ;)


Right. But everyone up there follows toe to heel with little hope free thinking. Well most everyone. :)
Thanks for the info.
Who would want to hurt anyone in Solana Beach? What me worry.
 

Pocket

Member
Feb 26, 2003
89
0
0
Originally posted by: HJD1
Has anyone a link reference that would give info regarding the spread rate of the various WMD and the delivery scenerios involved? I've looked briefly but did not see it.

I'm really worried about terrorist attack say in San Diego and how worried I should be a little bit north of there.


You really shouldn't worry about it. All you need is a little bit a plastic sheeting and duct tape and all will be right as rain.

Seriously, snap out of it. There is no terrorist cell within the United States that has a WMD in their possession. The reason I know this is because I am the director of the NSA...or because it's reasonable to assume that if a terrorist cell did have a dirty bomb or whatever, they would have used it by now. Terrorists don't need an excuse to kill Americans. They don't give a crap whether we shower Saddam with bombs or with roses. They are going to hate us and try to kill us anyways. The vast differences in our cultures makes that fact inevitable. Yes, they are humans just like us. And like humans, they are terrified of something they do not understand that has more power than they do.

My point is that the threat of a WMD attack on an American city is about the same, if not less, than it has been for the past 10 years. How many terrorist attacks has the U.S. been threatened with since 9-11? The Arabic number system doesn't go that high. How many terrorist attacks have actually occured since then (within the U.S.)? Zero.

If terrorists had a nuke or something, it would be a lot easier for them to blow up Israel or something.

Anyways, the whole reason for military action into Iraq is to stop Saddam from supplying terrorists with WMD.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: HJD1
I'm really worried about terrorist attack say in San Diego and how worried I should be a little bit north of there.
I just moved from SD back to the Cali hi-desert . . . fairly near 29 Palms marine base . . . (out of the frying pan and nearer the fire) ;)


Right. But everyone up there follows toe to heel with little hope free thinking. Well most everyone. :)
Thanks for the info.
Who would want to hurt anyone in Solana Beach? What me worry.[/quote]Letsee, how far is San Onofre? ;)

And downtown SD IS 20 miles from SB . . . Solana Beach USED to be such a quiet town.

:D

 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: HJD1
Quote
The Blame DOES belong squarely on the West for supporting Israel unconditionally and its extreme IGNORANCE about the Arab world.



True, but is the fact that they are a democratic nation mandate our unconditional support considering the area around them. Our creedo to support any nation in persuit of freedom (democracy). It seems to me, that may be part of the underlying reasons to stabilize the area. It just started with Iraq. I suppose this may mean that we will find other reasons to stabilize other nations in the area. Is that the goal?
Evidently . . . Iraq is the first. However, with American troops committed for possibly YEARS in Iraq - it's Infantry is going to be "tied up" and probably won't be able to "stabalize" other nations.

And Israel - because of the UNconditional support from the US - has become despotic and feel they "don't have to" resolve the Palestine issue. The Arabs see this as "unfair" (at the least).