Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
allthumbs

State of the Nation Address

Recommended Posts

I was glimpsing through a book a friend was reading, something written by a former US Attorney General (forget his name and book's title, can get), and in it he chronicles US war crimes committed during the first Iraq invasion. Pretty heady stuff. I believe he also speaks of 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. With an attempt at full takeover, one would have to conclude that this number would be eclipsed.

 

Saddam is virtually disarmed as it is. His ability to export war is absolutely attenuated through previous disarmament. His history as human rights abuser is no worse than many US client states. His mistake is that he has challenged the US most overtly, while sitting on the second largest known oil reserves in the world. And he promotes Arab independence. These two make him dangerous to US interests, and, as such, he must be liquidated. All of Bush's idiotic rambling is just an attempt to justify the invasion. His only concern is whether or not enough people swallow his Texas-sized bullshit. I say we MUST stand strong against this despot (Bush), and on Feb 15, join the rest of the world in showing that we will not go along on the mad ride. Trask, Fairweather, Sisu Suomi, et al, I expect to see you at the protest, joining the only sensible alternative to war.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SC ostrich.gif

 

I see you have fallen for the false dichotomy, hook line and sinker, namely: "If anyone disagrees with the threat Saddam poses to the freedom-loving world, the freedom-loving world where people LOVE freedom, then they simply must be ignorant fools. Naive pacifists."

 

Why don't you guys bark at the lack of freedom in US client states? My frustration knows no end with guys and gals like you....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"what these pictures can't hide is the fact that we were in bed with him while these murders and many others were committed."

 

what none of us can change is the past, wether what you claim is true or not. Let's assume everything you claim is true.

 

Does this mean we should now stand back and allow him to continue doing what he is doing? The end result of the responsibility you claim we have for his actions is taking no action?

 

You seem to be uncomfortable with the idea that no option which currently exists leaves us with no innocent Iraquis dying. Perhaps you could explain the moves you support that places us in a situation where say 3 months from now, no more innocent Iraquis die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"what do you mean by 'not at all'? during the 80's Iraq had our financial, political, and military support (all approved by Rumsfeld by the way)."

 

it means I am not denying we supported them in the 80's. I may not agree with everything you may claim, but it's well known we did so.

 

"Is this another case of your chronic lapse of conciousness?"

 

Not at all. Merely a case of your chronically prickly style of reading intent into folks who disagree with you. Maybe you need to issue your list of j-b approved response words and phrases so others won't need to deal with this.

 

"most death occurring now in Iraq are due to sanctions and the 91 gulf war. We should do everything we can to get rid of Saddam (as we always should have), but in the interest of being consistent, not create greater hardship for the people we purport to defend."

 

So we should do everything we can, but the sanctions are killing them, but we shouldn't actually remove Saddam next month.

 

This is exactly the kind of "effectiveness" I'm talking about. "Everything we can" means causing deaths via sanctions, fully admitting it, yet being afraid to cause deaths to end it it all.

 

I say every option leads to civilian deaths, you say it's largely the sanctions, I say you have not yet proved me wrong, you've only supported my point. In fact you have added to it, because you seem to be saying should not personally kill Iraquis, when that is *exactly* what we are doing with sanctions. It seems it's more peaceful to kill them with sanctions.

 

"oh please! You know as well as I do what the verdict is for someone firing a gun in a crowded theater, and it's not ruled accidental."

 

The verdict depends on who fired, who was hit, if anyone was hurt, why, and so on.

 

What is the verdict for locking people in a closet with a sadist for 12 years, while trying to starve the sadist? Is that an accident?

 

You do not seem to be getting the point here, no matter which way you cut it we are causing these deaths, and there is no option in which they do not occur, even if we withdraw sanctions and do not attack the deaths will occur by saddams hand. You point out bombing deaths and point out sanction deaths, point out our aid to Saddam in the 80's, and then want no death and Saddam removed. Welcome to fantasyland. Better this situation should end as soon as possible.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Set conditions. Fair conditions. Ones that a rational mind can agree to."

 

and enforce them how? what makes you think he'll follow new conditions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if we supported him while being fully conscious of what he was up to, what has changed about us? how are we establishing the credibility of our alleged motives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so if we supported him while being fully conscious of what he was up to, what has changed about us? how are we establishing the credibility of our alleged motives?

 

We aren't. It's that simple. Our motives have no credibility outside the US, and actually not even overwhelmingly here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Set conditions. Fair conditions. Ones that a rational mind can agree to."

 

and enforce them how? what makes you think he'll follow new conditions?

 

First of all, I find it to be amazing that the Iraqis have complied as well as they have. Think about it: They invaded a country (something the US has done many a time), were beaten, absolutely humiliated by that very country (US), had overbearing surrender-terms imposed (read: Treaty of Versailles?), with resultant catastrophic civilian deaths, with conditions that were virtually impossible to comply with.

 

So, fair terms? Hmmmm..... What might they consist of, I wonder....

 

By the way, are you at all familiar with the pre-Kuwait invasion situation? Are you familiar with the actions of the Kuwaitis? Just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And one more thing. From everything I've read, prior to '91, Iraqis enjoyed one of the highest (THE highest?) standards of living in middle east arab countries. It was very modernized, with a sizable middle class, and most people seemingly happy with their lot in life. The Iran war was a major drain, as was Saddam's dictatorial leadership for many, but overall, life seemed ok. Then they attacked Kuwait (we have attacked countries with far less provocation than what the Kuwaitis offered to Iraq). It was a "mistake" for which they certainly paid. How long should they keep paying, is my question.

 

Let the inspectors continue their work, certify them disarmed when appropriate, and then allow them to begin rebuilding their tattered country, for god's sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Britain, get in line or you won't get our secret anti gravity technology". I want a harness with that!!!

 

shocked.gif

 

Australia, the UK, anti-gravity and the Iraq crisis

 

by Malcolm Street, Canberra

 

Are you sitting down? Good, because this is going to blow your mind.

 

This item is going to sound like a bad reject from conspiracy publications like Nexus or New Dawn, or an X-Files fanzine. It isn't. The indisputable fact is that both the US and the UK are putting serious money into anti-gravity research with military aerospace applications. The only question is how far it is from operational status. There is informed speculation that it is already used in the American B2 bomber.

 

I believe that access to this potentially revolutionary and obviously highly secret technology, perhaps via the JSF/F35 fighter program, could be behind the otherwise (in my view) inexplicable level of support given Bush over Iraq by Howard and Blair.

 

For the record I am a mechanical engineer who spent over two years at a British Aerospace guided missile R&D site in the early 1980s and have continued to take a strong interest in aerospace technology. I am a member of ASRI (Australian Space Research Institute). I am not a crank.

 

The most puzzling aspect to me of the American obsession with invading Iraq even without UN sanction is the continuing support provided by Tony Blair and John Howard. The USA's reason is obvious; to gain control of a major oil supply as insurance against increasing instability in Saudi Arabia. (If it's about human rights and weapons of mass destruction, why the kid gloves treatment of North Korea?)

 

One could stretch to say that Blair has the interests of BP and the half-British Shell oil companies, but if it comes to a vote in the Commons he could well be rolled. However nothing apart from blind loyalty seems to explain the support given by Australia, and even with a conservative government there are rumblings from Howard's back benches and a population largely opposed.

 

So why are Blair and Howard, both consumate political operators, taking such a huge political risk for a war that no-one but the Americans want, which could destroy the structure of international law and result in both the UK and Australia becoming international pariahs?

 

My hypothesis is the supply of information from the United States that is so secret it is only known to the very highest levels of government and is of such strategic importance that it is worth taking such risks.

 

My initial thoughts were that the US was blackmailing both leaders over continued supply of intelligence information gained from the Echelon system via the UKASA agreement. But that could have been done at any time over the last couple of decades. However, the current timescale however coincides interestingly with the crucial development phase of the F35/JSF fighter aircraft program...

 

The JSF (Joint Strike Fighter), which is front-runner to replace the RAAF's F-18s and F-111s in what would be our largest ever defence order, is quite unlike any previous supersonic US fighter project available for foreign allies. Unlike the earlier F104 Starfighter and F16 Falcon programs, there will be no generalised offset agreements, by which foreign manufacturers will be able to supply components to the whole program. Technology transfer in the JSF will be very tightly controlled, with only the UK (developing a version to replace the Harrier jump-jet) so far as an inner partner.

 

Australia is trying hard to get on board, with (according to a local TV news item some months ago) three firms in Canberra alone tendering for parts of the project.

 

There is a precedent for Australia sucking up to a larger power in the hopes of gaining access to its advanced weapons technology; the agreement given to conduct British nuclear tests on Australian territory in the 1950s in the hope of getting transfers of British atomic bomb technology. (See Dr Wayne Reynolds' book "Australia's bid for the Atomic Bomb"). In turn a major theme of this book is the use the UK made of its own program as a bargaining chip to get access to US atomic technology.

 

The July 2002 issue of the British magazine Air International had an article entitled "JSF UK - more than just an aircraft" by one Robert Hewson which deals with the JSF program, particularly the extensive participation of British companies (notably BAe Systems and Rolls-Royce) in its development:

 

"One reason the US is keeping such a tight hold over the industrial elements of the JSF is the thorny issue of "stealth" and how to control access to the classified stealth technologies which are built into every aspect of the JSF design. The US and UK have a special (and classified) agreement that allows the two countries to share data on common stealth research, but all other discussion of the subject is closed. The question of how the US will supply this sensitive set of technologies to other JSF customers goes unanswered - but the underlying message is that the US is reluctant to do so and that somehow there will be different standards in JSF "stealthiness" between friends, good friends and others."

 

So we know there is a sweetheart classified deal between the US and UK over stealth technology in the JSF, and that apparently the full stealth technology will not be supplied to outside customers. Why couldn't it cover other highly classified technology as well? What if this other US-UK technology was so revolutionary that the inner partners' versions of the JSF would have a massive advantage over anything else in the air for years to come, something that could give them a colossal and unassailable strategic advantage, as great as, perhaps, the atomic bomb?

 

There is such a technology on the horizon: anti-gravity. Yes you read that right! Both the US and UK are publicly running research programs investigating anti-gravity under such headings as "propellantless propulsion". The UK effort, run by BAe Systems, is called Project Greenglow (see bbc for an overview), while in the US Boeing is running an anti-gravity program in its Phantom Works (Boeing's equivalent of Lockheed's legendary Skunk Works) in Seattle (see janes). In addition, NASA is looking into overlapping areas under the "Breakthrough Propulsion Physics" project (home page nasa). (An interesting selection of links on anti-gravity links, albeit with the odd crank, can be found at eskimo).

 

How far away is anti-gravity technology? It may already be operating...

 

Towards the end of an otherwise routine article on aircraft propulsion in Air International in January 2000, reprinted at aeronautics, well-known and highly respected aviation writer Bill Gunston speculated that the American Northrop B-2 Spirit heavy bomber already uses some form of anti-gravity technology:

 

"I have numerous documents, all published openly in the United States, which purport to explain how the B-2 is even stranger - far, far stranger - than it appears. Most are articles published in commercial magazines, some are openly published US Patents, while a few are open USAF publications by Wright Aeronautical Laboratory and Air Force Systems Command's Astronautics Laboratory. They deal with such topics as electric-field propulsion, and electrogravitics (or anti-gravity), the transient alteration of not only thrust but also a body's weight. Sci-Fi has nothing on this stuff."

 

What really put the cat among the proverbial pigeons was a feature published in a March 1992 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology, entitled "Black world engineers, scientists, encourage using highly classified technology for civil applications". For the first time in open literature, this article explained how the B-2's sharp leading edge is charged to "many millions of volts", while the corresponding negative charge is blown out in the jets from the four engines.

 

"Take-off thrust of the [b2 engine] F118- 100 at sea level is given as '19,000lb (84.5kN) class' by Northrop Grumman and as '17,300lb (77.0kN)' by the USAF. These are startlingly low figures for an aircraft whose take-off weight is said to be 336,5001b (152,635kg) and which was until recently said to weigh 376,0001b (170,550kg). Aircraft usually get heavier over the years, not 20 tones [sic] lighter. Even at the supposed reduced weight, the ratio of thrust to weight is a mere 0.2, an extraordinarily low value for a combat aircraft."

 

In other words, Gunston is implying that the B2 is seriously underpowered unless there is some means of reducing its mass or of increasing its lift beyond that provided by conventional aerodynamic means.

 

"Other writers have commented on the size of the B-2 wing and noted that its stealth depends on the huge black skin being made of RAM (radar-absorbent material). This, say the physicists, is 'a high-k, high-density dielectric ceramic, capable of generating an enormous electrogravitic lift force when charged'."

 

So is this why the B2s cost US$1 billion each?

 

Gunston's article is controversial, (an interesting discussion on it in the rec.aviation.military Internet newsgroup is archived at google under the title "B-2A and electrogravity") but there is a precedent for a radical, cost-is-no-object, highly classified US military aircraft using two major sets of new technologies, one secret and the other VERY secret.

 

The legendary Lockheed A12/SR71 "Blackbird" reconnaissance aircraft was increasingly declassified in the late 70s/early 80s, with major details released on the structural and propulsion technologies that enabled that incredible aircraft, one of the great masterpieces of aeronautical engineering, to cruise at Mach 3. What wasn't declassified until several years later, long after the F117 stealth fighter had been unveiled, was the fact that it was also a stealth design! While stealth took second place to speed, the fact was that stealth elements were a major factor in the airframe configuration, design of which dated back to the late 1950s, twenty years before stealth technology was even mentioned by the US government.

 

Another example is the even more legendary North American P-51 Mustang fighter of World War 2. For years its outstanding performance was explained by its "laminar flow" wing technology (also used in the B24 Liberator bomber).

 

Shortly before former senior manager and engineer at North American Aviation, Lee Atwood, died a few years ago he wrote articles for a couple of aircraft magazines (see, for example, airspacemag) giving the real explanation. Using a phenomenon known as the "Meredith Effect", the Mustang's characteristic under-fuselage duct for the engine's radiator was so shaped internally that the heat from the radiator converted it into, effectively, a low-temperature ramjet, thrust from which at high speeds offset most of the drag produced by the radiator in the first place! Not even the servicing crews knew that this was the true function of the duct design!

 

We know that the JSF/F35 will incorporate a high degree of stealth, like the B-2, with the degree of stealth apparently varying between inner and outer customers. However, stealth is relatively old-hat; the F117, the first stealth aircraft, turns up regularly at air shows, much of the US 70s and 80s stealth program has been declassified and the general principles, if not specific applications, of stealth technology are now well-known in the unclassified world. I can't see it being worth risking the fall of the UK or Australian governments.

 

So are Howard and Blair playing a very high-stakes game to gain access to a revolutionary military technology more secret, more important, than stealth, one that's perhaps being pioneered on the US-only B-2? Like anti-gravity technology only available to the select inner partners of the JSF/F35 program? And has the US threatened to boot them out if they don't toe the Bush line on Iraq?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per snopes.com, one of the first signs of a hoax is when the hoaxer goes out of their way to emphasize that they are some kind of expert on the subject, and would know if whatever they are talking about was a fake.

 

Suspicious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you only read the first paragraph, didnt you.

 

i can just see giant squid outfitted with anti gravity!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"so if we supported him while being fully conscious of what he was up to, what has changed about us? how are we establishing the credibility of our alleged motives?"

 

by removing the problem we created. I answered your question, I'd appreciate some answers on mine.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"First of all, I find it to be amazing that the Iraqis have complied as well as they have."

 

I'm amazed you consider the nearly entire lack of compliance, compliance "as well as they have" in any sense.

 

They continue to violate terms by attacking oversight aircraft they agreed to in the terms, they have not produced the evidence of their weapons as required, the previous round of inspectors had to go find it, they have not produced the proof of destruction as required in this round, they have hidden weapons and documents in violation of the terms, they have attempted to purchase banned items such as radiactive materials, and that's the list I come up with immediately.

 

I'm not sure how this becomes "complying as well as they have", when the compliance is for all intents and purposes non existent.

 

"with conditions that were virtually impossible to comply with."

 

What is virtually impossible about listing your weapons, and providing evidence of destruction while allowing oversight? What's difficult about not seeking fissionable materials, or not firing on aircraft?

 

The only sense in which this is virtually impossible is in that they were unwilling to comply.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

originally posted by Sexual Chocolate:

I was glimpsing through a book a friend was reading, something written by a former US Attorney General (forget his name and book's title, can get),

 

Sexual Choc,

 

this seems to be a recuring theme for posts you present as your "evidence". "....I can't remember the source/ I forgot...." blah, blah, blah.

 

Did the dog eat your homework?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, that's saddams excuse. We destroyed all those weapons you caught us with before 98, and burned the paperwork on them at the same time. No, you can't see the sites, we don't remember where they are. No, you can't look for breakdown products of the burned chemicals, the dog ate them. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×