10/12 early: AWACS coverage

[russotto]

Originally posted by Undertoad
There wouldn't be a plume though. A nuclear plant can't act like a nuclear bomb; I forget why. But the worst case is the meltdown, where the rods that control chain reactions can't be inserted back into the core. In such a case the generated heat gets so hot that it melts everything until it sinks right into the ground.

The plume in a worst-case nuclear meltdown is of radioactive steam and other material.

[russotto]

Originally posted by leif

No, we were not attacked because "were the biggest dog in the pack", or because we're a "beacon of freedom", or any oher such silly nonsense. We were the target because we are the country leading the military occupation of the Middle East.

And what military occupation would that be? Not even Iraq is occupied. bin Laden claims to object to American military presence in Saudi Arabia, but that's not occupation.

More blame-America-first crap.

[leif]

We've got a significant military presence and a significant influence on the Saudi government. We use their airspace for our military actions. Ditto for other neighboring countries.

Do we need to have a military presence in the reigon? Is that what our forefathers intended our government for? Is that what taxpayers want (or would want if they had more access to uncensored news)?

[Whit]

LOL
Hey, I'm all for alternative energy resources. That even made sense to me when I was a kid and Jimmy Carter was pushing for the research. And yeah the US throws its weight around ALOT in that region. But that's life.
Do you really question that other countries would do any different in our shoes? I mean damn, we push Democracy down everyones throats, yeah. We also push Capitalism like mad. We even have the audacity to try to make other countries clean up their human rights records. What bastards we are, eh?
Have you listened to what the mainstream Islamic people are saying? Have you listened to Bin Laden at all? He even called for a Jihad! The idiots not even a religious leader and he calls for a holy war???
C'mon dude, presenting people with someone to balme makes it truly easy to unify them, and make them fanatics ready to do his will. He's no different than alot of other madmen that came before. Actually there is one difference, it's much easier to do damage today than it used to be.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by leif

Do we need to have a military presence in the reigon? Is that what our forefathers intended our government for? Is that what taxpayers want (or would want if they had more access to uncensored news)?

That's nearly irrelevant now, IMHO. I think the relevent question now is: "Do we want anybody who wants to influence US foriegn policy to know that an effective way to advance their cause is kill a few thousand innocent civilians on our territory and then blame it on us because 'we made them do it'?"

What "radicalized" bin Laden about "US troops in Saudi" was the fact that *he* wanted to bring *his* army of Muhajadeen from Afghanistan to defend Saudi from Iraq. For some strange reason apparently the Saudis thought maybe the Coalition forces were a better deal. Imagine that. Now all of a sudden *after* 9/11 bin Laden fancies himself the champion of the Palestinians too. Somehow it seems that Arafat doesn't want him as their champion either.

What a load of hooey. Can you imagine what would have happened if bin Laden had been allowed to try defend Saudi Arabia against the Iraqis? They would have kicked his butt all the way to Yemen. and into the sea.

[jaguar]

Yes there are US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, a deeply Islamic country and home to many of the guys on board those planes. I think its more unsee 'occupation' that directly haivng tropps there, subtle influence etc.

Not only is oil gonna run out but Nuclear Power itself is deeply unprofitable and very unsafe. I remember reading a statistic about there on average with todays safty standards a 1/1000 chance of a major incident every milellium, now, times that but *how* many plants? Not good.

[Undertoad]

Nuclear power could be made to be safer, but there has been little interest in that concept since 1979.

[leif]

tT?ay "alternative energy" I don't mean nuclear; I was more thinking along the lines of hydrogen fuel-cells or other modern/clean technologies. I'm no scientist; I just know what I've picked up on NPR, Slashdot, AlterNet.org, and the like, but it sounds to me like the technology is here and we just need to put it into widespread use.

whit:
C'mon dude, presenting people with someone to blame makes it truly easy to unify them, and make them fanatics ready to do his will.

Uh, are you talking about OBL giving his followers someone to blame? Because that same thing is happening in America! Within hours of the attack, his name was on all the news stations. Remember, there has still been zero conclusive evidence against him. He's said we deserved it, and that he's happy about the attack, but thats no surprise. He was probably happy after McVeigh's bombing too, and lots everyone from Jerry Falwell to ME has said we had it coming (though for somewhat different reasons...). I'm not saying he's an innocent guy (he's certainly guilty of SOME terrorist acts, or so I'm told), but I would just think with the "Intelligence" infrastructure we've got we could dig up just a smidgen of proof against the guy IN THIS TERRORIST ACT. And the fact that we can't do that makes me wonder if he's really the guy, or if we're just being given a enemy to direct our rage at.

Of course, now that we've spent hundreds of millions (billions yet?) bombing Afghanistan, and killed countless civilians (including UN aid workers), Curious George can't exactly pull out and say "yeah, the real guilty parties are actually over here. Sorry about all that!".

The Taliban has said repeatedly that they are willing the negotiate, if we can just show them some proof bin Laden was involved. We (supposedly) have the proof; why not just show it to them? "National Security Concerns". Well, little kids wearing rags are getting blown the fuck up because of our precious national security, and our national 'security' can't even keep people from getting Anthrax in the mail. Does the fact that americans would rather watch coverage of "America Strikes Back" than "America Peacefully Negotiates" have anything to do with it?

whit:
And yeah the US throws its weight around ALOT in that region. But that's life.
So people can get real angry and crash airplanes into us, and "thats life" too? Because us "throwing our weight around" and them crashing planes into shit are sorta inter-related issues. You can't just brush it off; bombing the fuck out of some kids in the desert isn't gonna stop terrorists. Even if we killed off all the known terrorists, new people would follow them. We need to look at WHY there are millions of people who think the U.S. is evil, and that all Americans are scum.

Are YOU and ME benefiting from an economy that relies on their oil? If we started using (readily available) other energy sources, would it hurt us that much? President Bush's family is certainly benefiting. They've got a lot of money in the oil industry. I'd be just as happy with my car being powered by hydrogen. We could've started moving to cleaner energy years ago, but because our leaders have bussiness interests elsewhere we're now at "war".

I'd continue but I'm at work...
(this "new war" has really cut in on the workplace-productivity; I've probably spent more time reading+posting on various boards in the last month than the previous year combined!)

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by leif
tT?ay "alternative energy" I don't mean nuclear; I was more thinking along the lines of hydrogen fuel-cells or other modern/clean technologies. I'm no scientist; I just know what I've picked up on NPR, Slashdot, AlterNet.org, and the like, but it sounds to me like the technology is here and we just need to put it into widespread use.

Learning energy tech from NPR and /. is like learning about computers at Sears. You'll be entitled to hold the opinion that we should just switch to alternate energy when you actually know something about it.

Within hours of the attack, his name was on all the news stations. Remember, there has still been zero conclusive evidence against him.

That just *might* have something to do with the tfact that he's been threateneing to do exactly this sort of thing for years, has written extensively on techniques for doing it, and his people have been stopped just before doing it before a number of times. Those who have seen the evidence (which isn't on cnn.com for your personal perusal yet to protect the sources and methods that produced it--remeber the story of Enigma and Coventry?) say it's compelling.

everyone from Jerry Falwell to ME has said we had it coming

Now *thats'* a broad range of authoritiative sources. Falwell's theory was that it was God punishing the queers...the same reasoning he applied to AIDS, as I recall.

The Taliban has said repeatedly that they are willing the negotiate, if we can just show them some proof bin Laden was involved.

Their willingess to "negotiate" suddenly appeared when we demonstrated we were ready to apply military force and had widespread backing for it. "Negotiating" isn't being offered now, nor should it be. The time for "negotiating" was back last December, when the UN imposed sanctions on the Taliban for not surrendering bin Laden and his buddies.

We (supposedly) have the proof; why not just show it to them? "National Security Concerns". Well, little kids wearing rags are getting blown the fuck up because of our precious national security,

No, they're getting blown up because their government is run by outlaw religious fanatics who are providing a front operation for terrorists. This isn't time to open the bazaar. "Our precious national security" has to do with keeping *our* kids out of rags and safe from being blown up. Where has your concern about Afghan kids been for the last ten years?

Are YOU and ME benefiting from an economy that relies on their oil?...
I'd continue but I'm at work...

Well, *you* don't seem to be doing too badly then, eh?

[Whit]

Heh, you tell 'em MaggieL!

Leif you continue to talk about both the plight of the kids and new energy resources. When and if we FINALLY move on to something better those kids are screwed. Oil is the major export of the region by far, what income will they have when we don't buy anymore?

Personaly the need for alternative (read as BETTER) energy sources has been a pet peeve of mine for a while. Not only does George have alot of cash in oil, so did Gore. I agree completely that the reason we haven't moved on is political. I've actually agreed with several things you've said but you haven't seemed to notice. I might even suggest you do some background and find out who the Isreali's say was behind it, I htink you'd find it interesting.

Anyway, let me explain why I said, "That's life." The U.S. is a nation, it's primary funtion is the welfare of it's own citizens. We are not responsible for improving their lives. Most of the world feels we should do more to help them but we haven't dealt with alot of problems at home. If they don't like the way we've acted, then fine. Let them use diplomatic means. If that doesn't work then they're just SOL. We don't like alot of things China does, but last time I checked we didn't hijack planes and fly into their buildings. We cope.

I also agree that the bombing has been heavy handed and clumsy. Yes lot's of innocent's have died. No question we need to do better. I however don't forget the fact that I don't have a better idea. Do you?

[leif]

Originally posted by MaggieL
Learning energy tech from NPR and /. is like learning about computers at Sears. You'll be entitled to hold the opinion that we should just switch to alternate energy when you actually know something about it.

Fair enough, like I said I'm no expert. I realize we can't "just switch over", but the technology is certainly there and it just seems like we could be moving more in that direction.

Originally posted by MaggieL
That just *might* have something to do with the tfact that he's been threateneing to do exactly this sort of thing for years, has written extensively on techniques for doing it, and his people have been stopped just before doing it before a number of times. Those who have seen the evidence (which isn't on cnn.com for your personal perusal yet to protect the sources and methods that produced it--remeber the story of Enigma and Coventry?) say it's compelling.

His own son still claims he couldn't have done it. Not that I believe him any more than CNN, but it does raise further doubt. Has anyone who you have reason to trust seen the evidence and said it's compelling?

Originally posted by MaggieL
Now *thats'* a broad range of authoritiative sources. Falwell's theory was that it was God punishing the queers...the same reasoning he applied to AIDS, as I recall.

Yes, Falwell had a list of guilty parties that included the ACLU and the People for the American Way. Falwell says a lot of crazy stuff. I was just illustrating the point that simply saying that the U.S. deserved this doesn't make someone a terrorist (bin Laden has said he thought the attack was "joyous", but didn't say he was involved, and many have taken this as an admission of guilt).

Originally posted by MaggieL
Their willingess to "negotiate" suddenly appeared when we demonstrated we were ready to apply military force and had widespread backing for it. "Negotiating" isn't being offered now, nor should it be. The time for "negotiating" was back last December, when the UN imposed sanctions on the Taliban for not surrendering bin Laden and his buddies.
[/b]

I think the "time for negotiating" is never over; in my opinion there should always be a continuing effort to resolve the matter without dropping bombs.

Originally posted by MaggieL
No, they're getting blown up because their government is run by outlaw religious fanatics who are providing a front operation for terrorists. This isn't time to open the bazaar. "Our precious national security" has to do with keeping *our* kids out of rags and safe from being blown up. Where has your concern about Afghan kids been for the last ten years?

My concern for the Afghan kids has been pretty minimal for the past ten years. There are kids suffering all over the world. The ones in Afghanistan have suddenly a discussion item now that practically everyone I talk to is in favor of bombing their country.

Originally posted by Whit
I also agree that the bombing has been heavy handed and clumsy. Yes lot's of innocent's have died. No question we need to do better. I however don't forget the fact that I don't have a better idea. Do you?

Yeah, I have a much better idea. How about we stop killing civilians in the name of stopping terrorism? It doesn't take a genius to realize that the U.S. is commiting terrorist acts of it's own. And it's real hard to have any respect for a country that kills civilians in an anti-terrorist military campaign.

Originally posted by Whit
The U.S. is a nation, it's primary funtion is the welfare of it's own citizens. We are not responsible for improving their lives. Most of the world feels we should do more to help them but we haven't dealt with alot of problems at home.

I'm not even talking about spending money on aid programs for these people; I'm just saying it's stupid to spend money killing them. They've got it bad enough, they don't need our bombs raining down from the sky too.

[elSicomoro]

There seems to be enough evidence linking the hijackers back to al-Qaeda, which is headed by bin Laden. In addition, from what I understand, there is solid evidence linking bin Laden to the bombings of the American embassies in Dar-es-Salaam and Nairobi. This alone should compel the Taliban to surrender bin Laden for these crimes. The US was very clear: surrender bin Laden or you're getting bombed. No negotiation. Why should there be in a situation like this? They had almost a month to surrender him. Not to mention, the US was and is dropping FOOD to feed their people. The Taliban cannot even feed its own people.

I'm the last person to advocate war, but let's be realistic here. We're in a military action with several countries in order to capture Osama bin Laden. Innocent lives will be lost...but you have to use the least of the evils. If we send troops into Afghanistan right now, we would lose countless soldiers. We could negotiate until Jesus comes back with futile results. So, option #3. Furthermore, it's not like the US is TRYING to hurt innocent civilians.

Innocent civilians were killed during the Kosovo conflict (the Chinese consulate?), but I didn't hear many people complaining then.


And Jerry Falwell is a puke, period.

[Undertoad]

The US has taken absolutely remarkable steps to ensure that civilians don't get hurt. They do things like find the target they want to take out, and map the pattern of the explosion that will be caused to determine whether the blast will take out second stories of civilian structures. They actually select the bomb that will have the least destructive blast pattern to civilians.

Meanwhile, the anti-aircraft guns of the Taliban, often fired at night at targets they can't even see, do not have such carefully worked-out trajectories.

The Taliban has probably out-killed the US in civilian deaths by a factor of 10 to 1. Meanwhile, the US did another incredible thing - it apologized for the civilian deaths.

This is a remarkably civilized war, in which the technology of munitions is a major factor in the diplomacy. And each night is a new round of bombing, each day both sides get their latest say - not just to each other, but to almost everyone in the world who is listening.

[russotto]

Originally posted by leif
We've got a significant military presence and a significant influence on the Saudi government. We use their airspace for our military actions. Ditto for other neighboring countries.

A damn far cry from a military occupation.

[leif]

Originally posted by sycamore
Innocent civilians were killed during the Kosovo conflict (the Chinese consulate?), but I didn't hear many people complaining then.

I was complaining, as were humans rights groups all over the world.

How is it that we can justify killing civilians so eaisily yet be surprised when someone strikes back at our civilians?

Originally posted by sycamore
And Jerry Falwell is a puke, period.

Well, at least we can agree on that!

Also, about our so-generous food drops:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,...355618,00.html
They are largely unwanted, when they reach people at all, and are really just part of the war here at home (public relations). After all, you just used them as justification for a pro-bombing argument. ;-)

I don't mean to ruffle feathers; I've been reading this board for a while now and I like this group! I just think that there isn't ever justification for killing civilians. Regardless of their causes or convictions it was wrong for the terrorists to do what they did, and regardless of our cause or our need for justice it is wrong for us to kill civilians in our military strikes. Nobody here (as far as I know) would look into to the eyes of some kid and kill him or her; how is it that you can so eaisily support a military operation that (even by accident) does the same thing?