The decision has been made! Bomb Iraq!

What I would like to KNOW is if the USA Government pukes in HIGH places know where "These Weapons of Mass Destruction" are, damn am I getting tired of that termenology, then why do they not tell the UN Inspectors so they can go check!???

Golly Gee Whiz, they found some empty containers. So What!!

If have proof, give proof, find proof , report proof!

Hell, it dont get any simpilar than that!

Saber rattling is bull shit!

That is on the State Department Level, and just what do they know!

Their self importance is underwhelming but the Govt. (OURS) listens!



AllI know, I wish WE HAD HARRY TRUMAN once again in this situation.

This is not WW I or WWII, these asswholes dont fight fair!

They would rather blow up civilans in their petty little minds to make a so called statement!

Terrorism is right!

If we are going into the middle East, lets just blow up the whole damn region! Then All of Africa, Asia and anyone who doesnt want to be oppresed!

Ha, why dont we keep the oil being pumped out of Alaska now in this country?

Why do we need to open new oil feilds?

Why is only 1 out 10 oils pumps being in use in this country?

If you are going to argue the facts, then give the facts!

The Oil Crisis, there were many ships floating wast of Cal. laying low in water, full of crude but far enough to not beeing seen!

Shit, learn about what is going on before you speak and print on site!

Thanks, My london Broil is burning!

Later Ya All!

JWOW, doing it again!:eek:

Re: war protests?
 

In reverse order, yes, I think the President has made a decision. I think it's been made for a long time. Now, we're going through the pre-game posturing.

Protests made a significant difference in the Vietnam era -- but it took 10 years (and 50,000 casualities).

I wonder, too. I wonder where the proof of the Wepons of Mass Destruction is.

I HATE this thread...because it makes me think.
I don't know WHAT I believe any more. Actually, I don't believe any single side of the issue. All I DO know is innocent lives will be lost, families will mourn and what will we really gain? There will NEVER be "peace" in this world and all in the name of my God or YOUR God?!? IS oil another name for what we worship? I just don't know...

As far as the protests go, I do see a difference. At least they aren't spitting on our soldiers and calling them baby killers...yet. They did say after it broke up, many went over to another interest group. You know, there ARE career protesters...

I too wonder if this will be WWlll.

Calling up the reserves- I think I have to agree with KSig RC. We have an attorney friend and the casheir at the neighborhood market going. They are wonderful people who I worry about because I know they are more a reflection of civilian life than seasoned soldiers.

We say they are brave. We say their families are as well. But then, is it bravery if you have no choice in the matter? Is it not rather the more honorable, fulfillment of a "duty"? How many young BOYS actually joined thinking- let's duke it out or nuke it out? (I'm getting so upset I want to cry)

If my son had to fight, I would NOT be brave,I would be angry-angry at the WORLD. I would NEED to see proof-I would NEED to know WHAT my son is risking his life for. Asking us to "trust" in our leaders' judgement is too much when there are so many "agendas" floating around-the economy-oil-world bank-to name a few. All this war rhetoric babbled from the hill and tired cliche's just don't cut it.

GOD BLESS AND KEEP OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS SAFE FROM THE ENEMY- WHOEVER IT MAY BE

Maybe against the war, but I would never call these soldiers baby killer, maybe bush, cheney, rumsfield, and rice, but not the soldier, as long as they are within the rule and regulation.

And JAM, sometime the enemy is closer then u think. And that enemy is apathy.

Not to mention the ones who were killed in a "friendly fire" incident by American bombers while helping to fight the war on terror in Afghanistan.

It's hard to read discussions like this when I'm an American who is fiercely protective of her new home. :(

Re: war protests?
 

I think the decision was made long ago, and news will be coming out about it in no time at all.

I think protests help people feel a sense of accomplishment, of feeling like they've let their voices be heard, and that they've done their part to express their opposition. Some folks said that it made a difference in Vietnam (but I also think that the fact that Vietnam was the first "televised" war had something to do with that). As to whether it'll make a difference here, only time will tell, especially if the protests continue and get larger as the war progresses.

Re: Re: war protests?
 

Along the lines of what you are saying about the media . . .

I think the people in the government learned the lesson. If you think about it, the media accepted an unprecedented amount of censorship during Desert Storm. It was rather frightening.

Smart bombs only accounted for less than 7 percent of the munitions expended. But its all we saw on TV.

I know people that listened to the BBC just to get "real" information lol.

Re: Re: war protests?
 

Your point about the first "TV War" is well documented and well taken. It was also that massive peace demonstrations were televised. Both made a difference. According to the documentaries after the fact, the demonstrations -- particular the TV coverage gave Presidents Nixon and Johnson fits.

Edited several hours later after watching a PBS program on folk songs, and also seeing news converage of peace demonstrations literally around the world. It sure reminded me of many of the folk/rock anti-war anthems of the 60's. I don't know, maybe they also had something to do with changing public opinion?

The quotation may not be exact, but is close enough, I think.

"The Eastern World, it is explodin'
Violence Flaring, Bulletts loadin'
Your old enough to kill, but not for votin'
You don't believe in war, then what's that gun you're totin'
And even the Jordan River has bodies afloatin'
But you tell me, over and over and over again,
That you don't believe we're on the Eve Of Destruction"

Sung by Barry McGuire

My flowers are showing
 

I've had so many of those songs playing in my mind lately. Eve of Destruction is truly an ominous one. I just can't get them out of my mind!

I was just a few years off to feel the full impact of Viet Nam, but what I DID see, hear and read about it haunts me.
The young men I met after it was over were never free from their experience. It became a dark part of them and few would even speak of it. The drugs they had-especially grass-were so common, it was like a part of their daily routine. I only know what a few told me. Maybe it wasn't that prolific. Yet, they felt they NEEDED them to dull their fear and their conscience.
The wounds-mental and physical-were so deep that many couldn't figure out how to crawl out of the "funk". And these were the "lucky" ones? ...the survivors?

Arya-You are right, apathy IS an enemy (Communist Manifesto) but I can only pray we exhaust every avenue before we move forward.
http://www.geocities.com/tvshowtheme...lyLawSong.html

WAR- Whitfield &Stong excerpts (Back to you Delt Alum)
War. huh! Yeah!
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothin'! Uh huh uh hu-uh.

Ahhh war.
I despise, cause it means destruction of innocent life.
War means tears to thousands of mothers' eyes,
when their sons go off to fight and lose their lives.

War.
It ain't nothin' but a heart breaker.
War.
Friend only, to the undertaker.

Ahhh war.
is an enemy to all mankind.
The thought of war blows my mind.
War has caused unrest within the younger generation.
Induction, then destruction. Who wants to die?

Ahhh war.
has shattered, many a young man's dreams.
Made him disabled, bitter and mean.
Life is but too short and precious,
it's been fighting wars each day.
War can't give life, it can only take it away..

Peace, love and understanding, tell me
Is there no place for them today?
They say we must fight, to keep our freedom,
but Lord knows there's got to be a better way...

War. huh! Good God now, huh!
What is it good for?
Stand up and shout it. nothin'!

To explain the "professional soldiers" bit - yeah, you pretty much got it. I'm stating that this isn't their primary profession - I didn't say "The US reservists are poorly trained", simply that they are mostly of the 'weekend warrior' variety. That's not intended as a cut on the reservests - I think it's pretty honorable, and extremely brave when called upon, to do what they do - but they're not the freaking special forces here, they are the milkman and your neighbor and my uncle. So that's why I pray for them in particular.

As far as the semantics of "our interests" - that is an argument solely due to the nature of using the possessive 'our', and making it universal. Many would argue against any sort of war out of principle, and many would argue against reliance on fossil fuels period . . . these groups certainly don't have much in the way of interests being protected in a war with Iraq, no? While I don't necessarily disagree with military action against Iraq, sometimes I think we bandy about terms too freely, and assume that the interests of the government line up directly with those of Alexander Hamilton's mythical "the people".

And before the requisite "LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT CHEESEDICK!" comes out, I'm a card-carrying Republican, I support the party, I hate poor people as much as the next white suburbanite - I just take umbrage with this particular point.

________________
posted by justamom...
Back to you DeltAlum

I won't quote Pete Seegers "Where Have All the Flowers Gone," or "Cruel War," (PP&M?) or even "Ballad of the Green Berets" by S/Sgt Barry Sadler -- although the old radio guy in me really wants to.

I will just note what I think is one of the most distressing (and beautiful at the same time) lines from Paul Simon and Art Garfunkle's "Scarborough Fair:"

"Generals order their soldiers to kill,
and to gather it all,
and fight for a cause they have long ago forgotten,"

Overall, a worrisome thought.

(The second line may not be an exact quote)

Or, perhaps the best known, "All we are saying, is give Peace a chance."

Re: Re: Re: war protests?
 

That's what I was hinting at, James. I was just being willfully obtuse. Heh.

And I watch the CBC for the same reason... I stopped watching CNN a long time ago.

Re: Re: Re: war protests?
 

I don't know if it's a direct cause/effect situation, but I do know that in times of political dissent/distress, that musicians often take a more political stance, and therefore, the more political messages "trickle down" to Jane and Joe Middle America. People who think nothing of turning off the TV news, or who won't pick up a newspaper will listen to music; if the dissent is in the music, they'll pick it up eventually.

Or that's just my crack-pot theory. ;)

Here is something that really made me some kind of mad...I saw fliers posted all over campus (extremely liberal campus by the way) saying:

"Come join our anti-war protest to help protect the civil liberties of the Iraqi people!"

Okay - last time I checked....WHAT civil liberties?!

You want to know what makes me SICK -- seeing the televised reaction of the Iraqi people on TV after 9/11 -- seeing them cheer, party, burn our flag, etc. because they knew that we were caught off guard and that PEOPLE were dead. They didn't bother to stop and say "great the Americans are dead...gee though I'm really sorry that Canadians, Brits, and others got killed though!" -- NO - they were just happy that people were DEAD on American soil.

My brother's ship left two weeks ago. I pray for him and all our troops every day -- I also pray for George W. Bush -- because he has what it takes to stand up and say NO MORE -- regardless of what the "politically correct" standpoint would be.

As for the "wonderful" celebrities who are participating in the "Let's pretend that there are not people in this world who wouldn't jump at the chance to blow America off the map" protests, all I have to say is....WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE? I remember so many saying "If GWB wins then I'm moving out of the country" -- maybe they should take their cause over to Iraq, N. Korea, etc. and tell them that they are going to fight for them. Let's see how long they last there.

I'm just plain MAD about a lot of things -- I'm mad that people are so blind to reality. They can face that the reality of war is a horrible thing, but they can't face the reality that there is NO peace when you have CRAZY people with nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction on the loose! Why was 9/11 such a complete surprise? Because we made the mistake of letting our guard down and we have suffered for it.

AXO Alum-I'm just plain MAD about a lot of things -- I'm mad that people are so blind to reality. They can face that the reality of war is a horrible thing, but they can't face the reality that there is NO peace when you have CRAZY people with nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction on the loose! Why was 9/11 such a complete surprise? Because we made the mistake of letting our guard down and we have suffered for it.

I agree, especially about "...there is NO peace. I don't think there ever will be again...in the historical sense. We will all have to redefine what "peace" means in a world where any fanatic can get his hands on weapons or carries his ideology to the extreme.

Though it is unlikely, I'm praying for Sadam to be forced into exile.
As far as N. Korea, I think those who share their backyard need to lead that fight and let us "assist" for a change.

Listening to the latest commentary, the question has been posed-
Is it time for the US to put down their stick and retire from the role of world protector?

AXO Alum-God keep your brother safe.
Celebrities can all GTH!
Those citizens who do back us in Iraq can't be televised for fear of personal harm or harm to their family.
Afghanistan is still a hot spot.
It is the UN that needs to take a stance-NOW-as it stands, they are impotent.
I would really like to know whose in bed with who, but political science and analysis was never my strong suit.

While I have stayed out of this thread. I have my own opinions on this issue and I rather not get into an argument with anyone. Besides, that is not what this thread is about. I do pray for the soldiers...all soldiers and their loved ones because no one wants to see anyone killed especially a loved one.

I just have a comment/question. Crazy? The US is just as crazy as any nation. Why is it okay for the US to have nuclear weapons but no any other nation?

Right on the money! :D Couldn't have said it any better myself.

Good question there, Lady Pi Phi. At least we have so many safeguards and protections to prevent the accidental or unauthorized release of nukes.

Some of these other countries who do have the nuclear genie in their possession are either 1.) hurting for hard cash (Russia), 2.) looking for an excuse to sell a ready-made nuke to the highest bidder, especially terrorists, and 3) it makes for a great weapon of intimidation -- lraq and N. Korea are but two countries that are flexing their nuclear sword of Damocles.

In the US, the President is the only one authorized to release nuclear weapons to the military, and employed through a highly classified war plan known as the SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan, pronounced 'psy-op') Anywhere where nuclear weapons are to be stored, used, launched, dropped etc, has a minimum 'two-person concept'; no one person can arm or launch a nuke.

One example: the keys that begin the launch of a Minuteman ICBM are more than ten feet apart in the launch control center. Both keys must be turned simultaneously by the two officers. This is only one 'launch vote'. A second key turn and 'vote' from another launch control center commits the missiles to launch, based on certain factors already programmed by the SIOP. On the contrary, if the second control center feels that the first is attempting an unauthorized launch, they can send an 'inhibit' command that stops the process.

Up until recently, we had a 'no first use' policy on using nukes. That appears to have changed, ever since the President mentioned that the US reserves the right to use any means at its disposal, in retaliation for using weapons of mass destruction. (The New York Post put it out in language the every day reader could understand: "US TO SADDAM: WE'LL NUKE YOU".

(P.S.: Mr. President, you pronounce the word 'noo-clear' and not 'nu-cu-lar' like some West Texas hayseed ;) :) :D)

That's one of the best questions I've seen posted on this thread. I've wondered that myself, especially since we're the only one in history to use nuclear warfare...not once, but twice. AlphaSigOU brought up a lot of points that I wasn't aware of. I just wish he would pronounce the word "nuclear" right, too.

Not every Iraqi was celebrating on September 11...to say that because ONE group of people (there could have been more, we don't know) was celebrating is as preposterous as saying that all Americans were sitting in front of their TVs crying (because I know for a fact that all Americans were NOT devastated). Because of that one group, Iraqis don't have civil liberties? :confused:

I wholeheartedly support the troops forced to fight in this war, despite the fact that I don't support the war nor do I support the man in charge of this whole deal. None of them wants to be there, it is their job and duty to this country--and they are serving valiantly and we should be proud of them.

Whoops! Did I mispronounce it? :) Thanks for the heads-up.

Unfortunately, that's the misinformation that many Americans are led to believe.

Quote:

I wholeheartedly support the troops forced to fight in this war, despite the fact that I don't support the war nor do I support the man in charge of this whole deal. None of them wants to be there, it is their job and duty to this country--and they are serving valiantly and we should be proud of them.

I don't particularly like getting into a war unless we have a very clear-cut objective. We're rushing headlong into the abyss if we're not careful. Those empty shells found by UNSCOM may have been a plant to incite the drums of war in America by the Iraqis.

Both sides are itching for an a**-kicking contest, and neither side is giving up ground. Get ready for a knock-down-drag out fight in the streets of Baghdad -- I hope all that MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain -- a fancy name for house-to-house combat) training our guys have gone through help them out - we certainly don't need another Mogadishu on our hands.

Mobile 'Scud'-busting (by A-10s and F-16s) didn't work very well in '91. (You had to catch 'em just at the point they were about to launch to wipe 'em out.) Maybe our improved Patriot missiles can do a better job. But they're not a cure-all either.

My thoughts and prayers to the men and women serving our country in this time of crisis.

Yes, we are going not to war, but to get Saddam out of power.

It is in the works as I type! I have a Brother in the know and is a done deal!

Baghdad will not be hailstormed but has been suggested to any CNN reporters, do not be there!

Even most pof the Arab Countries want Saddam out, but will not publicieze it.

Two scenerios, assination, or retire to a country that will have him! That is the deal or Bombing! Even Kaddafi hates his guts and he does not say much after he was a target!

The countries that the Military is the most worried about are the Pakistanies and the N Koreans! They both have Nuke power which came from the little countries that left the Soviet Union!

There is so much armament missing and being sold it is not funny!

Beleive it or not, both Russia and China are trying to keep N Korea in check! China is sending food and money to N K but theonly ones being fes is N K Mill. man army, the rest of the country is starving by the thousnads!

Hell am getting to tired to type well so screw it!



TTFN! Ya All!:)

last night i found out one of my really good friends, paul, ( and the former president of FKQ here) is shipping out on friday for the middle east. He's in the Army ROTC here in Iowa and he was called up...

I didn't want to go to war in the first place... now i really really don't want us to go.

Well guys it's not looking good...driving back from home the other day I saw a truck and on it were two tanks painted a sickeningly familiar "sand" color. I nearly cried when I saw that. Why else would they order tanks painted to blend in to the desert sands? And here's an interesting tidbit for ya, all of you who are discussing media and censorship and what not. I'm fluent in Arabic (little known fact) and I listened to what one of the Iraqi officials were saying (in Arabic) on CNN and it was NOT the same as what the translator said. AT ALL. Basically what dude said was fairly, well...non aggressive, but the translator 'made him say' something completely different, and, well, aggressive. Does that scare anyone else????? My theory is that CNN is just being Bush's puppet and trying to scare us "ignorants" into thinking that this war is a great idea. I too pray for all of our soldiers, AND those serving from other countries. It's a job I'd be hard pressed to take. God bless them all!

swissmiss, that is a very interesting perspective. if you had not mentioned the fact that translators can make other people 'say' things, and make all of us believe they are being majorly aggressive, I probably wouldn't have thought about it.

I just wish perspectives like this got more attention from media so the people of this country could know more about the situation.

Many US military vehicles nowadays are painted in desert colors; in days of old the camouflage de rigeur was 'Woodland', designed for the forests of Central Europe.

Quote:

And here's an interesting tidbit for ya, all of you who are discussing media and censorship and what not. I'm fluent in Arabic (little known fact) and I listened to what one of the Iraqi officials were saying (in Arabic) on CNN and it was NOT the same as what the translator said. AT ALL. Basically what dude said was fairly, well...non aggressive, but the translator 'made him say' something completely different, and, well, aggressive. Does that scare anyone else????? My theory is that CNN is just being Bush's puppet and trying to scare us "ignorants" into thinking that this war is a great idea. I too pray for all of our soldiers, AND those serving from other countries. It's a job I'd be hard pressed to take. God bless them all!

I'd hafta digress on that... out of all the networks, CNN, while it has a liberal slant on things, is somewhat objective in their news coverage. I would have agreed with ya if it was Fox News, which is staunchly conservative.

Translation is one thing, interpretation is quite another. Considering how Arabic can be a very subtle language to interpret (I speak fluent Spanish, but not Arabic) and if the translator is not skilled in the nuances of a foreign language could lead to misinterpretation.

Case in point: during the closing days of WW II the Japanese issued a statement that was misinterpreted by the Americans. It hinged on the use of one Japanese word, 'mokusatsu' (literally, 'killing with silence'). Needless to say, the Americans took it as meaning the Japanese weren't even going to consider unconditional surrender, and this accelerated the decision to using the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Here's an excellent definition on how it's used: (source: http://www.apmforum.com/columns/boye36.htm)

Quote:

Mokusatsu refers to the idea of "killing" the other party's case or proposition by letting it die in the vacuum of silence. Americans and other aggressive types are especially susceptible to being tripped up by time gaps because they have been conditioned to abhor vacuums - to jump into any gap in a conditioned reflex to keep the dialogue from lagging or stopping. Too often the foreign side presumes that the Japanese do not understand the points that were made, or that they have not yet accepted the reasoning of the foreign side and need more convincing. This presumption regularly leads to hurried repetitions and frequently to on-the-spot revisions or compromises that favor the Japanese. The proper defense for a mokusatsu ploy is simple. Just do as the Japanese do - rest and think, make use of the break to refer to notes, hold private discussions with your own colleagues, and so on. It also pays to introduce your own time gaps, and have control of the ball.

My prayers to our servicemen and women about to go into battle.

swissmiss- Basically what dude said was fairly, well...non aggressive, but the translator 'made him say' something completely different, and, well, aggressive. Does that scare anyone else?????

Shades of the book, "The Ugly American" a must read for everyone.

Now it is explained that France and Germany have HUGE financial interests in KEEPING Sadahm in power, or at LEAST keeping the status quo as far as oil is concerned. Plus, the govt. of Iraq-which of course translates into Sadahm- owes Germany something like 6 or 7 BILLION dollars! Is it just more rhetoric?
AMERICAN news sources ae implying that Germany and France's anti war stance is no so much a call for peace as a call for retaining the current balance of power where OIL (there it is again) is concerned. Plus, yes they do see us as too strong and know that a change in regeims would most likely favor the US position. No wonder they are balking. Still, Rumsfeld's comments were a far cry from diplomtic statement.


Intersting article from The Jordan Times dated Jan. 31 2001!
exerpts-from Spain's perspective. (Funny, that so many say we haven't given Iraq enough time.)

"We have always believed that the solution to the Iraqi problem had to be political," he said.

His one-day mission to Baghdad aimed to "listen to the Iraqis" and evaluate the deadlock caused by "Iraq's refusal to accept UN inspectors."

"In this context, there have been encouraging developments lately, as Iraq has accepted for the first time to talk to the UN to find a way out of the current impasse," the envoy said.
http://www.jordanembassyus.org/01312001001.htm

interesting news from the Iraqi front...
 

CNN just reported this on their website:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...eut/index.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq (Reuters) -- President Saddam Hussein's eldest son Uday has warned the United States of huge losses and a calamity worse than the September 11 attacks if it goes ahead with plans to invade Iraq.

"It is better for them (the Americans) to keep themselves away from us," Uday was quoted as saying on Thursday night by al-Shabab (Youth) television which he owns.

"Because if they come, September 11 which they are crying over and see as a big thing will be a real picnic for them, God willing," Uday said, referring to suicide hijacker attacks in New York and Washington which killed about 3,000 people in 2001.

"They will be hurt and pay a price they will never imagine," he added, repeating similar comments in an editorial in Thursday's Babel daily, which Uday also owns.

Uday said the Americans could get more gains from Iraq without war, saying that Washington would fail in ousting President Saddam Hussein.

"They can get much more from Iraq by dialogue without resorting to the logic of force and war," he said.

The United States believes Saddam is hiding weapons of mass destruction from U.N. arms inspectors and has threatened to disarm him by force if necessary. Iraq denies having such weapons.

President George W. Bush's administration, which is building up a major military force in the Gulf area, has said the release of a U.N. Iraqi weapons inspections report on January 27 will be an "important date" in deciding how to react against Baghdad.

"They (inspectors) will discover that we do not have these things, we are not lying, we are telling the truth, we have no proscribed weapons," Uday said.

===============================
If you don't want to read it all, it basically says Saddam's eldest son said if the American invasion occurs, it will come at a high price for all Americans and make 9/11 look like 'a picnic'.

This leaves me thinking 2 things:
1. First of all why is this guy saying Americans will pay a price higher than the lives lost at 9-11? This really worries me.

2. *How* is America going to 'pay'? Does this mean they do have these weapons? Or??

3. Or is this an example of how they are being misinterpreted by the translators?

Question. :rolleyes:

What gives US the right to question other countries about having weapons on mass destruction?

Re: interesting news from the Iraqi front...
 

Typical war-mongering bluster... remember the 'mother of all battles' in '91? However, I'd keep an eye out for Uday Hussein... he's reputed to be even more bloodthirsty than his old man.

Quote:

2. *How* is America going to 'pay'? Does this mean they do have these weapons? Or??

Probably... that's why they're playing 'hide the evidence' and jerking UNSCOM's chain, and we're not buying it. Maybe not a workable nuclear device, but don't discount them using radiological waste and make 'dirty bombs'. Poor man's nukes, but just as deadly.

I'd be more worried about chem or bio weapons, since it is a known fact Saddam has 'em and has used 'em.

I don't think Saddam understands the meaning of the famous saying of Admiral Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbor:

"I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant, and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Two years later Yamamoto was ambushed by American forces and killed.

It's already been said that should Saddam or any terrorist organization with ties to Iraq detonates a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon on US troops, interests or people, the US military reserves the right to respond in kind. God forbid this should ever happen...

Quote:

3. Or is this an example of how they are being misinterpreted by the translators?

Unlikely this time... be aware that just like Spanish, there are several dialects of Arabic, and one word's meaning in Algerian Arabic could mean something entirely different in Iraqi Arabic. (I speak fluent Spanish with a Venezuelan dialect and accent(though I'll throw in some Cuban or Puerto Rican just to confuse things), and I have a hard time understanding Mexican Spanish and its slang.)

Simple... certain other countries who already have the Bomb or are at the point of deploying one aren't afraid to sell 'em or give 'em away to the highest bidder, namely terrorists. India and Pakistan have itchy trigger fingers and looking for an excuse to annihilate each other. Israel isn't afraid to use their (officially non-existent) nuclear arsenal if Saddam hoses off a few Scuds with chem or bio agents. They've already informed the US through the 'back channel' to stay out of the way if that should happen.

We've unleashed the nuclear genie twice in anger over 55 years ago, and got into an arms race with the former Soviet Union that practically guaranteed the total annihilation of planet Earth several times over if they were all used. The nuclear planners called this unlikely scenario a 'war-gasm' and for good reason.

Since I sparked interest on the whole translator thing (which still wigs me out, sorry!) here's another question: Would you not think that if you were a fairly reputable news organization (like CNN) you would make darn sure and certain that your translators had "the skill" to interpret. And yes there are dialects within the Arabic language (as in all languages). There's the dialect from the Magrihb countries (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia), ECA (Egyptian Colloquial Arabic), Gulf dialect (Yemen, Omar, Bahrain, Saudi, etc) and then MSA (modern standard arabic). MSA is what is universally understood and used in the Arab world, particularly by government and media figures. From what little I heard of him, none of his language was dialectic in nature. And sorry for the language lesson....I guess if it's ever a question on Jeopardy you'll thank me. :rolleyes:

I remember watching the HBO movie Live from Baghdad (about the CNN crew that scooped everybody and got caught in the middle of a war :) ) the other day and noticed a scene where Robert Wiener (played by Michael Keaton) hires an Egyptian woman right at the hotel desk for $100 a day. And she certainly wasn't a professional translator, just a tourist.

In Spanish, we have the 'King's Spanish' (much like British English), spoken with a distinctive 'lisp' and very formal, to the very colloquial and informal Mexican Spanish, spoken with a distinct sing-song accent. And your variations in between European and Latin American Spanish. Argentinian and Chilean Spanish has a somewhat European feel to it (and many Latinos poke fun at the distinctive Argentinian accent -- the (in)famous Commie revolutionary Ernesto Guevara earned the famous nickname 'Che' from his Argentinian-accented Spanish -- they seem to like to inject the word 'che' (almost like 'bud' or 'buddy') everywhere).

Cuban and Caribbean Spanish is spoken very rapidly. Venezuelan Spanish, while it's actually in South America, is grouped as a Caribbean accent. Colombia has a distinctive accent, though Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Paraguay tend to speak a neutral accent. The same goes with the countries in Central America, the farther they are from Mexico, the accent is more neutral.

There is a version of Spanish similar to the 'Modern Standard Arabic' that's somewhat jokingly called 'Walter Cronkite Spanish' -- only used in government and news, though many of the anchorpersons give themselves away with their accents.

Steve, you are so right!

In your position and the people that I know there are many things going on!

The question is, how many people really know????

Oh, by the way, give ACK ACK a Happy Birthday on This Thread! After all even though heis from Texas He is still a Brother!:cool: :D :)

When I was home over X-mas break, I would be woken up by all of the helicopters flying over. One time I went outside to see what the commotion was and there were six helicopters, and I've also seen the Apache helicopter fly over a few times... I do not want to go to war. :eek:

We'll I would have to say that in the case of CNN it has a lot to do with ratings.... now hear me out. If you turn to CNN all they talk about it the showdown with Iraq (roughly 80% of coverage). Alot of people turn to CNN for their news and as long as you keep an "air" of tension there is a spike in the numbers of viewers as well as viewing time (this was mention in a sociology course that I sat in on). While i'm not saying that it is intentional, there might be a sub-consious effort to keep the story "riveting". Also you have to remember that the CNN you watch is broadcast only in Canada and the US... the feed to international is marganially different.

Now being in Canada i'm lucky enough to get not only US broadcasts but also Canadian and British (BBC) braodcasts. Just from watching I have noticed that the US newscasts are always more beligerent in their tone and "sound-bites". In the case of translations; the CBC, BBC, and International CNN usually differ signifacntly from the US CNN - the translations are usually alot more "diplomatic sounding" and teand to not be so harsh... which I tend to believe is closer to that actual language. Afterall even if the regime is headed by a raving lunatic, you still have to have a diplomatic or proganda staff that is somewhat competent.

Sorry to cut out a lot of what you had to say...I totally understand this. When I lived overseas, we watched CNN World for our news, instead of just reading the International Herald Tribune (which is essentially a regurgitation of the Times and the Post). Anyway, there were things covered on CNN World that they definitely wouldn't have covered on US CNN...primarily about countries that would later on be in the "axis of evil" :rolleyes: and other countries that we don't deal with, like Vietnam and Cuba. It really bothered me how much we're being deceived...I know it happens in other countries too (maybe even worse!), but in a country where the freedom of the press is mentioned constantly, it really bothered me.

Which is why I'm glad that we get BBC World News on WGBH-Boston! :D

:eek: I don't know what this is all about. I was watching the nightly news and they had reports from some Iraqi scientists about tests they have conducted with biological weapons.

This really scares me :(

Back in the days when I served Uncle Sam in the U.S. Air Force (that was in the bad old days of the Cold War and the Soviet 'Evil Empire'), one of the first things we did in our inprocessing at the base I was stationed at in Europe was go to a mandatory NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical, not the TV network :) ) warfare briefing. We were told that the nearest Warsaw Pact air bases were only about fifteen minutes' flying time away and that any attack by them would assume to use chemical weapons, at the very least.

We were briefed on the effects of chemical weapons and learned the strange alphabet that identified the various deadly chemical concoctions... VX, GB, Tabun, Sarin, mustard gas, etc. and how to recognize the symptoms of a chemical attack. You gotta be very quick with that atropine injector... and you learned how to pack the gas mask for quick donning -- if it took you more than ten seconds to put it on, you're as good as dead. They didn't go too much into detail with biological agents.

After the briefing was the mandatory trip to the gas chamber, to experience the effects of CS riot control (tear) gas. Not a very pleasant experience with your eyes tearing, your nose running and hacking and puking your guts inside out. Once you get out of the chamber and into fresh air, the symptoms subside, though we were instructed to make sure we thoroughly washed our clothing afterward, since leftover particles of CS tend to be a little persistent.

Almost every month we practiced a chemical warfare exercise code-named 'Salty Nation'. It usually started in the wee hours of o-dark-thirty and lasted for 18-24 hours. Occasionally, the exercise would start with the playing of the 'William Tell Overture' (the Lone Ranger theme), which to this day I can't listen to without reminding me of these exercises. Luckily, when I reported in, the base had just ended a two-week long chem warfare exercise called 'Salty Demo'. Not fun.

To reinforce the fact that it was an exercise and not the real thing, the alarm signals were always prefixed with the word 'EXERCISE'; for example, the warning signal was called 'ALARM YELLOW'. The signal for an air raid in progress was 'EXERCISE ALARM RED'. (Don't ask me why, but it's called 'ALARM BLUE' in U.S. military bases in South Korea.) Whenever chemical agents were detected, 'ALARM BLACK' was issued. There was one time during an exercise that for some unknown reason the speaker cut off the word 'EXERCISE'; all we heard was 'ALARM RED'. You've never seen so many people grabbing for their gas masks so quickly.

The exercises were played in deadly seriousness and the chem suits were hot and downright uncomfortable when worn for long periods of time. Not to mention that the charcoal lining of the suit dirtied up your uniform. I was glad when the loudspeaker system on the base announced 'ALARM WHITE'; that was the all-clear signal and usually signaled the end of the exercise.

Iraq has used biological weapons against the Kurds in the north of Iraq before, as well as against Iran in the 1980's, however "based on a US Senate Committee on Export Administration report of 1994, we know that between 1984 (at the latest) and 1989, private American suppliers were exporting all kinds of chemical components to Iraq, after obtaining licensing by the US Department of Commerce. According to the report, "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction." They included:
Bacillus anthracis - Causes anthrax
Clostridium botulinum - Source of botulinum toxin
Histoplasma capsulatam - Causes a disease that attacks lungs, heart, brain, and spinal cord
Brucella melitensis - Bacteria that can do major damage to organs
Clostridium perfringens - Highly toxic bacteria that causes systemic illness
Clostridium tetani - Also highly toxigenic
E.coli, genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, precursors to chemical-warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities and chemical-warhead filling equipment were also exported (all according to this report).
The report mentions: "It was later learned that these micro-organisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program"(During the first rounds of inspections in the 90's) (Blum, Rogue State, p. 121-123). "