21-05-2003 00:23									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Wow, a rare triple post. The server is wacky today.

-Arrian

	21-05-2003 00:23									#32
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara The US is now putting off Iraqi self-rule "indefinately."

My BS meter is going wild right now Che. Can you give me a reputable souce (that means not one of the usual anti-American sources).

	22-05-2003 02:12									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin My BS meter is going wild right now Che. Can you give me a reputable souce (that means not one of the usual anti-American sources).

Is The Boston Globe good enough for you?

	22-05-2003 02:18									#34
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Hmmm... My Ctrl-F doesn't yield the word "indefinitely."

	22-05-2003 02:20									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: My BS meter is going wild right now Che. Can you give me a reputable souce (that means not one of the usual anti-American sources).

Do you have a TV? This has been reported by every news source I've seen... even Fox.

	22-05-2003 02:22									#36
	Get a bigger avatar today!

update:
1. Iraqi self-rule (ie interim administration) is now planned for July.



2. Thom Friedman of the NYT says that only 30% of shiites want a Khomeini-like govt. Thats out of the 60% of Iraqis who are Shiites. So altogether only 18% of Iraqi want Iraq to be like Iran.


3. France, Russia and Germany announced today they will support the revised version of the US-UK-Spain resolution lifting sanctions on Iraq, and established the relationship of the UN to the occupying Authority. This should open the way to participation by various nations in peacekeeping and policing, and should aid in reconstruction.

	22-05-2003 06:34									#37
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Last I heard the interim government takes over in July. That would be one month + not indefinitely.

	22-05-2003 08:46									#38
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Well, OK. You are confusing the prudential and legal cases for the war. The prudential case for war certainly included the prospect of being better situated to bring pressure on Saudi Arabia. need I remind you that 3000 of my fellow citizens were murdered on 9/11 by a terrorist group that received financial (and probably other) assistance from within the Saudi kingdom, and that the Saudi kingdom is the center for radical wahabi incitement?

So the right thing to do was to invade Saudi, then. Were the US forces using outdated maps again?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark WMD where the casus belli - and let us recall, UNSC 1441 required Saddam to prove that he DID not have WMD - there is no evidence he was not in violation of that - if he had really destroyed all WMD prior to 2002 (which i do not believe) why didnt he encourage his scientists to cooperate?

As I recall, UNSCR 1441 did not authorise the use of force in any eventuality at all. Also, it seemed to me that the weapons inspectors were making progress, and much of the US "intelligence" was found to be bunk.

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Was it to keep the IMPRESSION he had WMD, which would give him the same regional leverage but at less expense? If so then we were certainly right to go after him, even if no WMD are found.

Was Saddam Hussein implying he had NBC weapons? If not, what's your point?

	22-05-2003 10:39									#39
	Re: Baghdad civilian casualties, DU, etc. Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara In the meantime, the Pentagon indirectly admits that DU is dangerous by ordering soldiers to stay away from areas contaminated with DU.

Duhhhhhhhhhhhh! Why dance around "indirect" when the Department of the Army (and the other services have their versions) have long-published, publicly available policies and procedures for handling DU ordnance and for decontamination?

The "issue" is HOW ****ING DANGEROUS. Nobody from the Pentagon ever said the stuff was chocolate-****ing-chip cookie dough. It's just not the make-you-glow-in-the-dark-while-your-schlong-drops-off neurosis that the constant DU whiners make it out to be.

	22-05-2003 10:49									#40
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Che, please post the article -- it's registered only.

	22-05-2003 10:51									#41
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Is The Boston Globe good enough for you?

Isn't that where Jayson Blair worked before moving up to the New York times?

	22-05-2003 12:36									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Let's not forget that most of us who opposed the war opposed it because of what would happen afterwards. That still has to play out.

And it will continue to play out for eternity.

	22-05-2003 13:03									#43
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Che, the word 'indefinately' dosen't even show up in that article; further, it's clear from that article that nobody, with the possible exception of the INC, is ready to move forward yet -- everybody's still talking with everybody.

	22-05-2003 14:21									#44
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ming I know you are che... but I don't get that feeling that some of the other anti war people are.

Anyone who'd rather see people die than be wrong about something is a pretty disgusting individual.

	22-05-2003 14:27									#45
	Re: Re: Baghdad civilian casualties, DU, etc. Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Duhhhhhhhhhhhh! Why dance around "indirect" when the Department of the Army (and the other services have their versions) have long-published, publicly available policies and procedures for handling DU ordnance and for decontamination? The "issue" is HOW ****ING DANGEROUS. Nobody from the Pentagon ever said the stuff was chocolate-****ing-chip cookie dough. It's just not the make-you-glow-in-the-dark-while-your-schlong-drops-off neurosis that the constant DU whiners make it out to be.

You mean, I should drop depleted uranium from my diet?

	22-05-2003 15:31									#46
	Re: Re: Baghdad civilian casualties, DU, etc. Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Duhhhhhhhhhhhh! Why dance around "indirect" when the Department of the Army (and the other services have their versions) have long-published, publicly available policies and procedures for handling DU ordnance and for decontamination? The "issue" is HOW ****ING DANGEROUS. Nobody from the Pentagon ever said the stuff was chocolate-****ing-chip cookie dough. It's just not the make-you-glow-in-the-dark-while-your-schlong-drops-off neurosis that the constant DU whiners make it out to be.

Wait until this stuff is fired at your back yard... I think you wouldn't be so causiously forgiving then.

Uranium is in finely dispersed condition very toxic as it is easily inhaled. And if you fire a uranium hall at several times the speed of sound at a hard object you get a finely dispersed uranium dust.

	22-05-2003 19:57									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger So the right thing to do was to invade Saudi, then. Were the US forces using outdated maps again? As I recall, UNSCR 1441 did not authorise the use of force in any eventuality at all. Also, it seemed to me that the weapons inspectors were making progress, and much of the US "intelligence" was found to be bunk. Was Saddam Hussein implying he had NBC weapons? If not, what's your point?

1. saudi - not prudential to go after saudi first, with saddam still in power.

2. UNSC 1441 promised serious consequences. That meant war. War was not mentioned explicitly for reasons that have already been discussed here.

3. Weapons inspectors progress - the progress they made was to demonstrate that Saddam was not cooperating - he didnt account for his allegedly destroyed weapons, and he didnt cooperate with interviews of scientists. Ergo he was in violation of 1441 - no further inspection was required to confirm that.

	22-05-2003 20:00									#48
	Support Apolyton

quote: The "issue" is HOW ****ING DANGEROUS. Nobody from the Pentagon ever said the stuff was chocolate-****ing-chip cookie dough. It's just not the make-you-glow-in-the-dark-while-your-schlong-drops-off neurosis that the constant DU whiners make it out to be.

	22-05-2003 20:24									#49
	Re: Re: Re: Baghdad civilian casualties, DU, etc. Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by dannubis Wait until this stuff is fired at your back yard... I think you wouldn't be so causiously forgiving then. Uranium is in finely dispersed condition very toxic as it is easily inhaled. And if you fire a uranium hall at several times the speed of sound at a hard object you get a finely dispersed uranium dust.

Been there, handled that. The dust inhalation problem has been studied extensively. The zone of significant risk from a 120mm M829A1 APFSDS round (largest DU round in US use, with a 40mm x ~ 890mm DU penetrator) impact on MBT armor (hitting a lighter vehicle causes less vaporization and shear-fragmentation, resulting in less dust) is approximately 50 meters from the impact site for a period of 5-10 minutes. DU once it hits the ground is the densest stuff down there, so initially, it's the last to get kicked up by wind and the first to settle out. In the long term, it sinks progressively into the soil where likelihood of human ingestion is minimal, and the contact toxicity is similar to lead.

There are established procedures for decontamination, and DU is far from the only chemical hazard on a battlefield - do you think breathing air containing burned fuels, synthetic rubber and hydraulic fluid is good for you?

	22-05-2003 20:29									#50
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Azazel LotM, a spread of those deseases can be prevented by sanitation. "Don't drink from the toilet, kids.". I realize that utilities are in the crapper, but from some people here, you get the feeling that people are supposed to drop like flies in Iraq.

If you have a functioning water supply, with source water given at least primary biological treatment (typically, a chlorine or alternative {Potassium permanganate, etc.} drip system is attached to water production wells, to continuosly inject the proper ratio of treatment agent), then you have your sanitation issue solved.

If you have to crap in a bucket, and take another bucket down to the river and get water that way, then you've got problems.

	22-05-2003 20:31									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Well, don't **** in the river, then.

	22-05-2003 20:47									#52
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Trouble is Basra is downstream - so even if people upstream don't **** in the river (but where do you think Baghdad, etc., sewage discharges to?), then about 50 billion goats on farms all up the valleys are shitting in the river (well, it washes down) as are all sorts of swamp critters in the wetlands areas.

On the lower Tigris and Euphrates rivers, I wouldn't consider walking on water to be miraculous.

	22-05-2003 20:52									#53
	Tired of ads?

Well, clear water is a known *****.

And yes, Chlorination is rather swell at cleaning the water.