 | | Newspeak 2003
|
|
"Iraqi ultralights spotted over U.S. troops" (URL) Gen. Victor E. “Gene” Renuart Jr., director of operations for Central Command, was quick to label the bombing as an act of terrorism. “That kind of an activity is a symbol of an organization that is (...) (21 years ago, 30-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
|
(...) No way! Are you saying that the word "terrorism" is misused to discredit the enemy? I am shocked! Another interesting term is "precision bombing". The US government has officially apologized to the Iranian government for US missiles hitting (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
|
(...) But they missed the intended country *very* precisely. Actually, I thought I heard that (at least some of) the missiles that hit Iran had been identified as Iraqi in origin. Can anyone verify this? Granted, even if true, the Iraqis only fired (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
|
(...) I think my favourite thus far is that "He will use the WoMD that don't exist when the forces close in on him." How does that sentence make sense at all? Dave K (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
|
(...) Didn't some of those missiles (GPS guided) go awry while GPS jammers (sold and serviced by Russian companies, as it turns out... probably because they underbid the French) were being deployed? You can't fault the missiles directly for that. (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
|
(...) It makes about as much sense as the Palestinians asking that Saddam launch missiles (that he doesn't have) containing chemical weapons (that he doesn't have) at Israel, I guess... (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
|
(...) My Papa was at a 60th wedding anniversary on the weekend.. (60! wow!). It was for friends of the family--for us kids growing up, almost like godparents. Anyway, "Jim", husband of wife, Jean, was in the british forces during WW2 and was also (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
|
(...) I think I read somewhere that the Russians claimed that the U.S. forces were just looking for an excuse as to why their overrated and expensive weapons were failing in their intended use. This excuse could give them good mileage when it comes (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
|
(...) Mimicking U.S. foreign policy and strategies I was thinking that perhaps Iraq could invade Israel and "decapitate" the evil regime headed by known terrorist and war criminal Ariel Sharon. It all depends on one's perspective, doesn't it? -- (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
|
(...) This is an easy one, when an organized military wearing the uniforms, and flags of the country they represent acts based on declared military intentions, that is "engagement". When men dressed as civilians feign surrender before they fire on a (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
|
(...) If he kept going and took out the greater evil, Arafat the whole peace process would have a new spin on it. Scott (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
|
(...) And if there was a democrat in the big chair, this wouldn't be happening right now, either, so, no, this war isn't 12 years in the making, it's Dubya's little fiasco that he started when he wanted to be president. If there were a war due to 12 (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
|
(...) Plain, collective dumbness. Pedro Silva (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
|
(...) Never assume that any overwhelming trend is due to ignorance. I don't know anyone who believes that Iraq was directly related to 9/11. Connected to terrorism yes, but not to that particular event. (...) Now this is downright herresy, Mike (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
|
(...) I'm really touched that you said that. It means a lot to this American to hear you say so. And I mostly agree but did want to point out that if your friend was instead of taking on a bully, but were actively bullying an innocent victim, it (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
|
(...) Oh absolutely--if my friend was mean enuf to pick on someone, a la 'bullying', I woudn't hesitate to try and stop that particular fight. That said, usually my 'friend' in this particular instance isn't a huge bully, though sometimes I am (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
|
(...) Note - the word "hit" needs to be qualified here. Errant missiles have not made it to their targets, but they basically crash-landed. Tomahawks are not fully armed until just before reaching their targets, so errant missiles may cause small (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | GPS JAMMERS
|
|
(...) My understanding was that it was claimed GPS "jammers" made no impact. In fact, [IRC] it was claimed a GPS weapon was used to destroy them ... I only wonder why they were destroyed if they had no impact? ;) The best estimate I've read is that (...) (21 years ago, 2-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
|
(...) Hey, why not let China [et al] make a copy of a dud? ;) Scott A (21 years ago, 2-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
|
(...) Tom, I know yourself as one of the most reasonable guys here, much more than most of the other guys here including myself. But Iwhat you are doing right now is trying to rationalize the things in a wrong way, I believe. Just imagine: Some (...) (21 years ago, 2-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
|
(...) Heck no, I'd stick it on ebay. ;) (...) On what charge? (...) Indeed, cluster bomblets have a 16% failure rate; I wonder who'll come and collect them? Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 2-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Whose side are you on, anyway?
|
|
More questions about the Russian role are raised in this UPI article: (URL) went to the iraqwar.ru site mentioned (URL) I did not see the information given but I wasn't looking very hard. Does anyone else? (21 years ago, 2-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Whose side are you on, anyway?
|
|
(...) The whole report appears to be a statement of the obvious from analysts who are allegedly “linked” with the Russian military: ==+== Strikingly, the Russian analysts, whose work appears on the iraqwar.ru Web site, believe that U.S. and Allied (...) (21 years ago, 2-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
|
(...) I read somewhere that it was only the (older) Tomahawk missiles that went astray, and when the problem was identified, the coalition immediately announced it's intention not to use them until it was resolved. The Cruise missiles and laser (...) (21 years ago, 2-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
