BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:09 AM

Teribus: Thankfully, the peace, security and well being of nobody relies on decisions taken by the likes of you, if unfortunately they were we'd all be well and truly fucked, you clearly demonstrate that you haven't got the sense you were born with.

Well, the security of the world relies on the likes of you, and the folks that you're busy making excuses for ("Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job..."), and sadly, most rational analysts say that we're in worse shape now than we were before, and going in the wrong direction. In fact, most of the U.S. population thinks we're on the wrong track too (newsflash for you, in case you just listen to Limbaugh and watch Faux Snooze). Say, where's Osama been Forgotten? Didn't hear Dubya mention him last Friday, strangely....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Buffy
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:15 AM

Guest, youre doing a heck of a job. Now zip your pants.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:45 AM

BB: Military Strength   
Iraq               Country               Britain

Hey BB, not sure what you thinks that proves, but how about
this category (which you strangely left out of the list): Nuclear submarines

Or maybe: H-bomb warheads

Or even: Aircraft carriers

Leaving out any pertinent information to slant your conclusion? Sounds like you're ready for a high position in the Dubya maladministration.....   ;-)

And just out of curiosity, why would you compare Iraq to Britain when wondering whether Iraq is/was a threat to the United States?

Better RW flacks, please....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:50 AM

BB: If YOU agree that Hitler was no threat to the US in 1940, then wouldn't you agree that the WWII was a "catastrophic success" and a completely bone-headed blunder?

You're circling Godwin's Law rather closely, BB.

But I never made any such claim, did I? Your "analogies" really need a little work. See if you can manage it.

But just a FYI, we won WWII.

As I pointed out, Germany declared war on us (and was attacking our shipping). Why you keep trying to equate WWII and Iraq is really beyond me.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 03:14 AM

BB: ... and I do know that we were in a state of war at the time we attacked Iraq...

To paraphrase another of more talent:

"There's a lot you know,
that really ain't so...."

I really don't gave a d*** whether you think that a "state of war" existed. What matters is what people that actually know about these kinds of things know.

BB again: ... he was blocking the free access of the inspectors from doing their jobs.

There's more you know that just ain't so. After some initial intransigence, the inspectors were allowed everywhere they wanted to go.

BB blathers on: Should I mention that, if he did NOT have the programs, all he would have had to do was to stop trying to hide them?

Probably not. Because he didn't have them, and he couldn't stop trying to hide them, any more than you can stop beating your wife.

Teribus: The Iraqi population has just voted for their constitution - FACT

With an amazing 99% "yes" vote of all eligible voters in some Sunni areas. Will wonders never cease?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 03:28 AM

Geodick,

Your logic reminds me of something from Mark Twain. I can't recall it verbatim, but this'll be close enough I think.

Fellow was telling a tale about a buffalo climbing a tree. One of the listeners said, "Hey, buffalos can't climb trees!" The narrator of the story queried, "Have you ever seen a buffalo climb a tree?" Fellow replied, "No." Narrator said, "Well then, how do you know they can't?"

Twain at least knew he was being funny.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 07:26 AM

Well GUEST 13 Nov 05 - 02:09 AM an independent study commissioned by the UN came out recently with findings that run counter to your arguement. It has come to the conclusion that since 1998 the world has become a safer place (even taking into account Iraq and Darfur) we are 40% less likely to experience a war and 60% less likely to encounter genocide.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 11:14 AM

The thread premise is drivel. As others have pointed out, if it were true, Bush and his minions would be constantly trumpeting it.

But they're not. Haven't noticed a special press conference or Bush speech detailing this new development. I wonder why.

So save your exclamation marks for something of significance, and preferably plausible.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 11:38 AM

Arne..Game set and match to you, whoever you are!!

Concise and accurate replies based on how you most intelligent people see the problem.
Real ideas versus skewed and distorted facts .

Well done ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 12:53 PM

Dr. Hans Blix Reporting to the UNSC - 14th February 2003

"Regrettably, the high degree of cooperation required of Iraq for disarmament through inspection was not forthcoming in 1991. Despite the elimination, under UNSCOM and IAEA supervision, of large amounts of weapons, weapons-related items and installations over the years, the task remained incomplete, when inspectors were withdrawn almost 8 years later at the end of 1998.
If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament - under resolution 687 (1991) - could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if and I quote "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming."

Please note the last part of the last sentence - UNMOVIC was not at this time receiving the co-operation required - Anybody doubt that take it up with the man who wrote the report - Hans Blix.

Dr. Hans Blix Reporting to UNSC 27th January 2003

"The environment has been workable. Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas Day and New Year's Day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.

In this updating, I'm bound, however, to register some problems. The first are related to two kinds of air operations. While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we plan to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety unless a number of conditions are fulfilled.

As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in Resolution 1441 and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our requests. I hope this attitude will change.

Another air operation problem, which was so during our recent talks in Baghdad, concerned the use of helicopters flying into the no-fly zones. Iraq had insisted on sending helicopters of their own to accompany ours.

This would have raised a safety problem.

The matter was solved by an offer on our part to take the accompanying Iraqi minders in our helicopters to the sites, an arrangement that had been practiced by UNSCOM in the past.

I'm obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of an intelligence character. While I might not defend every question that inspectors might have asked, Iraq knows that they do not serve intelligence purposes and Iraq should not say so.

On a number of occasions, demonstrations have taken place in front of our offices and at inspection sites. The other day, a sightseeing excursion by five inspectors to a mosque was followed by an unwarranted public outburst. Inspectors went without U.N. insignia and were welcomed in the kind manner that is characteristic of the normal Iraqi attitude to foreigners. They took off their shoes and were taken around. They asked perfectly innocent questions and parted with the invitation to come again.

Shortly thereafter, we received protests from the Iraqi authorities about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, they were not.

Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq with initiative or encouragement from the authorities. We must ask ourselves what the motives may be for these events. They do not facilitate an already difficult job, in which we try to be effective, professional, and at the same time correct. Where our Iraqi counterparts have some complaint, they can take it up in a calmer and less unpleasant manner.

The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programs of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusions that nothing proscribed remains.

Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be "active." It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can."

References to Iraqi failure to provide full and pro-active co-operation run as a consistant theme throughout Blix's reports to the Security Council - Now I believed what that man was saying at the time as did a number of others, If Arne has further information from a better source all well and good let him present it. In his Report to UNSC of 6th March 2003 Dr. Hans Blix specifically stated that UNMOVIC COULD NOT rule out the possibility that Iraq WMD or facilities to produce them.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:59 PM

Sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner on this, Teribus, but yesterday afternoon and evening, we had guests.

Anyway—

I'm not going to recite the facts of the entire Second World War for your enlightenment and edification, but there are a few highly questionable assertions in your attempt to besmirch my rather extensive and detailed knowledge of history.

Beginning in 1935 and in direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles, Hitler began building up the military power of Germany, particularly the Wehrmacht (tank corps) and the Luftwaffe (air force). German Tiger tanks, with their 88 mm. guns, great numbers of which were built between 1935 and 1938, were the most modern form of "cavalry" in existence. Germany built vast fleets of them.   Polish and Czechoslovakian cavalry at the time consisted mostly of horses! The Panzer divisions and the Luftwaffe (flights of Stuka dive bombers sufficient in numbers to darken the skies, with Messerschmitt 109s, one of the most modern fighter planes in the world at the time, flying cover should there be any interceptors to attempt resistance, even though the Stukas themselves could double quite well as fighters). By 1938, the Luftwaffe had become the most powerful air force in the world. The Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe were considered by Hitler's generals to be the essential parts of the new "blitzkrieg" style of war.

If you wish, I can supply you with enough links and bibliographic sources to keep you busy until sometime next April.

Before I'll seriously consider your assertion that the British and the French had superior numbers of tanks prior to the outbreak of the war, you're going to have to present me with some pretty damned authoritative—and verifiable—figures. Not to mention the condition of that war materiel. A mere fifty brand new Tiger tanks are going to have a considerable advantage over a thousand World War I machines rusting out in a junkyard. But I'm pretty sure even that was not the situation that prevailed.

In contrast to sheer numbers and quality of aircraft in the Luftwaffe, the RAF, which came into existence in 1918, didn't begin to build up its forces until war on the Continent broke out with Germany's invasion of Poland. Spitfires and Hurricanes were vastly outnumbered by the planes of the Luftwaffe, and as you acknowledge, in the Battle of Britain it was not superior numbers, but the skill and determination of the RAF pilots that won the day.

Incidentally, military firearms were in short supply in Britain at the outbreak of the war. There were only fifty (that's 50—five-oh!) Bren light machine guns in the British Isles at the time. This is indicative of why the "lend-lease" program was so essential.

At the time of the outbreak of WWII, no nation (with the possible exception of Japan, but even that is doubtful) had a more powerful war machine than Germany did.

I was a kid during World War II (were you even born yet?) and I followed the news avidly. I'm not particularly a WWII buff, but I have a fairly extensive library on it, and I'm able to relate what I read to what I remember as going on at the time. So don't give me any crock about me not knowing my history. Your attempts at refutation merely point up the vast gaps in your own knowledge.

And regarding the TAP pipeline of late, it's no wonder Unocal has backed out of the deal. There has been much visiting and searching among the various countries involved, with nobody making much in the way of definite decisions. Not to mention the fact that sometimes it's not real bright to try to run a natural gas pipeline through an area where there's a war going on. Here are a couple of fairly recent stories on the development—or lack thereof—of the pipeline. HITHER and THITHER

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 03:55 PM

But also from the same report that T-Lite has quoted from Hans Blix remarks to the Security Council:

" Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC. The most imporatnt point to make as that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had greatn help in building u the infastructur of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable..."

And that is followed with several papragarphs deatiling varuious inpsection details such at timing, holidays, capabilities...

It is his words "The most important piont to make..." I think speaks volumes about Hans Blix's perception that the inpections were going just fine...

But when I ask the question here in Mudcat, "Hey, what was the hurry in invading Iraq", I am met with the usal repsonses from the usual suspects who somehow either weren't paying attention in Januart, 2003, or believe evetrything that Bush tells them to believe...

BTW, Bush outright lied on Friday in makin' the claiom that Congress had the same intellegence that he had... That was not true but I'm sure that one of the Bush apologists will step forward with some long cut 'n paste and I hope they do 'cause the other barrel is loaded and I got my finger on the trigger so "Make my day!!!".....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 03:56 PM

Arne,

You make unsupported statements. If you want to make up facts, try to at least have a possible refernce that someone, somewhere might think that you are right.

""There's a lot you know,
that really ain't so...."

I really don't gave a d*** whether you think that a "state of war" existed. What matters is what people that actually know about these kinds of things know."


A perfect quote- so why should I believe anyt of your lies, when you do not believe the UN reports?


Bobert,

U-235 , please, or plutonuium. Some of us know how easy it is to make a bomb, once you have the materials. He had the materials, in violation of the cease-fire terms and the UN resolutions.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 04:13 PM

Ake,

"The points have all been made and the arguments won over Iraq"

So, having declared your viewpoint the only valid one, you will not bother to consider any facts that might prove you wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 04:17 PM

Careful, Don...you gotta check your reference books. You are not accurate in much of what you say regarding German equipment, etc...

There were NO German Tiger tanks built between 1935 and 1938, and none with 88mm guns either. The Germans were equipped with the following types of tanks when the Battle of france occurred:

Panzer I - a very small tank that mounted a machine gun. These proved almost useless except for reconaissance or for engaging infantry. They were being phased out after the conclusion of the Polish campaign, but a few were still in use against the French and English.

Panzer II - a rather small scout tank with a machine gun and a 20 mm cannon. Reasonably good general purpose light tank, but outclassed
by most French and English tanks.

Panzer 35T - a rather good Czech medium tank, with a 37 mm gun, I think. It was roughly comparable to a Panzer III.

Panzer 38T - a similar, but more advanced Czech medium tank, again with a 37 mm gun. Good vehicle for the time.

(You see, the Czechs did indeed have tanks, plenty of them, and good tanks in 1938. The Germans put those same tanks heavily to use in Poland, in France and the Low Countries, in Russia, the Balkans, and North Africa. Your assertion that the Czechs had "mostly horses as cavalry" is not correct. The Czechs did have some horse cavalry, yes. So did the Germans, the Poles, the Russians, the Italians...hell, almost every did. Did you know that the Poles ALSO had a very good tank in 1939? It was called the 7TP, and it was pretty much the equal of most German tanks of the time. The Poles had relatively few of those tanks, however, and German air superiority proved well able to deal with them.)

(The Czechs also had the 88 mm flak gun in 1938...that's where the Germans got it! It was of Czech manufacture. It is estimated that more Allied personnel were killed by the 88mm in 1939-45 gun than by any other comparable heavy weapon.)

Panzer III - a darned good medium tank for 1940, it usually mounted a 37 mm gun, which was typical at that time. It performed excellently, and went on to be the main tank in further campaigns in the Balkans and in Russia. It was secondary in armour and fighting power to the French Char I Bis heavy tank and the British Matilda. The French Char I Bis was probably the most formidable tank in the world in 1940, with the possible exception of the Russian KV-1 tanks of the same time period.

Panzer IV - Another darned good medium tank. In 1940 it was armed as an assault vehicle, with a short-barrelled 75 mm gun. This was a gun intended to fire mostly high explosive rounds against infantry and fortifications, which it was very good at. The short barrel meant a low velocity shell, which meant it wasn't so suitable for firing armour-piercing rounds, though it could, theoretically.

The Germans DID have some 88 mm guns in 1940. Flak guns. They were the World's most deadly gun of that type at the time, and could be towed behind a halftrack and set up. These were the guns that stopped British Matilda tanks in a British counterattack at Arras, I believe it was. The Matilda was so heavily armoured that virtually nothing but an 88 mm gun could knock it out. German tanks were almost helpless against Matildas at the time. The Germans were versatile enough that they quickly realized that a flak gun could be used as an antitank gun, and they did so. This enabled them to win many, many battles in Europe and North Africa.

The first German Tiger tanks, mounting this same 88 mm gun, did not appear in combat until 1942, when the Tiger I was introduced. It was a response to the much heavier Russian tanks that the Germans had encountered in Russia...namely the T-34 and the KV-1 and KV-2. Those tanks were much tougher than their German counterparts, until the Tiger I arrived on the battlefield.

Teribus is entirely correct that the British and French outnumbered the Germans in tanks in 1940 and had superior tanks on the whole. They did indeed. They had Somua 35's, Char I Bis, and Matilda tanks that were superior to German tanks. What they did not have was a superior air force, and most of all they did not have a modern strategy to match the German blitzkrieg tactics. They were totally outthought by the Germans.

The Germans used far superior tactics of breakthrough and encirclement, and they coordinated their air force with their ground forces in a far more efficient way. That proved decisive. They also massed their tanks in heavy forces for breakthrough purposes, while the French, on the whole, misused the excellent tanks they had by spreading them around piecemeal like mobile artillery.

On paper, France had the best-equipped ground force in western Europe in 1940. It was crippled by using World War I tactical thinking, and by being very poorly organized. They also had no radar to provide early warning. That allowed intial German air attacks to be very effective.

England HAD good radar, and that was the crucial factor in their ability to stave off the Luftwaffe in 1940. You say that the British won the Battle of Britain through superior "skill and determination". I doubt that. My impression is that the Germans and British were equally skillful at the time. In fact the German fighter corps was probably MORE skillful in the initial stages, because they had an elite group of fighter pilots with plenty of prior experience fighting over Spain, Poland, the Low Countries, and France. Those pilots generally racked up higher kill scores than their British counterparts at the time.

The Germans faced numerous disadvantages over England.

1. Their Messerschmitt 109s had too short a combat range to penetrate deeply into the UK or to stay there very long once in combat. They could barely reach as far as over London. This proved to be an insoluble problem for the Germans, as their bombers desperately needed those Me 109s to protect them.

2. The other German fighter, the Me 110 twin-engine plane, proved too unmaneuverable to dogfight Spitfires and Hurricanes. It was a dead duck over England. This came as a real shock to the Germans.

3. The famed Stukas were likewise dead ducks over England. They were very easy to shoot down with a modern fighter. They could only survive under conditions of air superiority, and the Germans were never able to achieve that over England.

4. The larger German bombers were all good machines, but they needed fighter escort. As mentioned before, the Me 109s were greatly limited in their escort ability, due to their short range.

5. The British radar allowed them to gauge an appropriate response to each situation...avoid if the odds are too high...pounce when the odds are good. The Germans didn't have that luxury. They were flying blind.

6. Every German pilot who parachuted over England became a prisoner. Every British pilot who parachuted got to fight again. Some pilots parachuted many times, and got to fight again. A trained pilot is far more valuable than an airplane.

7. The Germans kept changing their minds about what objective to go after. First they went after channel shipping. Then they had a brief go at knocking out the radar stations (unsuccessful for the most part). Then they decided to go after RAF airfields and airplane factories (the airfields in particular...that was the right decision).

8. Then Hitler got mad because the British bombed Berlin, and he ordered the Luftwaffe to bomb London and keep bombing it. That lost them the Battle! Had they simply kept on stubbornly attacking the British airfields, which was the right move to make, they would almost certainly have broken the strength of the RAF by autumn, and an invasion could have gone forward.

A lot of different factors combined to save England. The British and German pilots both fought with superb skill and dedication. There is no reason to underestimate either of them in that regard. It is mere propaganda to state that the British won because of superior skill and determination. Hell, everyone gave it their utmost. It was a poker game, and the Germans didn't play the winning combination, that's all.

I'll tell you where the Germans were way superior to the British in 1940: their army. And why? Because it was using more modern tactics. If the Germans had ever gotten that army ashore in England, they would have been unstoppable.

The Germans many times defeated forces that outnumbered them in the early war years, and many times defeated forces that had superior tanks too...the Russians certainly did. How they did it was with far better tactics, and more experienced troops. They out-generaled the opposition.

The notion that they had this huge war machine that outnumbered and outgunned everyone else is just total, absolute nonsense, and it's the remainder of some misleading propaganda that was used to explain away catastrophic defeats suffered by the Allies in the early years of the war.

Remember all the hoopla about the Bismark? Well, the Bismark was, relatively speaking, a rather good battleship, but it wasn't tremendously superior to other ships in its general class at the time. It was roughly equivalent to most modern battleships in 1941. It had 15" guns. So did most British battleships. It had excellent belt armour, but not so good deck and upperworks armour. It had a quirky radar system, probably not as good as British radar.

You could say it earned about a 7 out of 10 for WWII battleships. Respectable, but not earth-skaking.

Yet Allied propaganda blew the Bismark up into an almost unstoppable monster, a terrifying leviathan stalking the ocean! Well...they liked to dramatize things, didn't they? And they had to explain the loss of HMS Hood somehow to a grieving nation...

The thing that really sucks about it, Don, is here I am defending Teribus's points! Ay-yi-yi...it's tough being a WWII history nerd.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: pdq
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 04:54 PM

Don't mess with Little Hawk when it comes to history! Or Bob Dylan lyrics...

Actually, the outcome of WWII hinged on three inventions: the atomic bomb, radar, and the proximity fuse. The US and England were ahead in developement of all three. The A-bomb is widely discussed, here is a little about the other two inventions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WILLIAM WEBSTER HANSEN
Credited with inventing Klystron.
"Born 27 May 1909; died 23 May 1949.
American physicist who contributed to the development of radar and is regarded as the founder of microwave technology. He developed the klystron, a vacuum tube essential to radar technology (1937). Based on amplitude modulation of an electron beam, rather than on resonant circuits of coils and condensers, it permits the generation of powerful and stable high-frequency oscillations. It revolutionized high-energy physics and microwave research and led to airborne radar. The klystron also has been used in satellite communications, airplane and missile guidance systems, and telephone and television transmission. After WW II, working with three graduate students, Hansen demonstrated the first 4.5 MeV linear accelerator in 1947."

The cavity magnetron was the other major building block to the radar. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the proximity fuse...
"The Crosley Corporation was one of five companies that assembled proximity fuzes. A total of eighty-seven different firms using one hundred ten factories were engaged in some phase of production work. Crosley's involvement began in late October 1941 when they were contacted by the Bureau of Ordnance and told that they would be contacted later that month concerning a "top secret, top priority" project. Lewis M. Clement, Crosley's vice-president in charge of Engineering, recalled that Crosley had been selected because they had the required background in electrical and mechanical engineering and in mass production. The letter of intent from the Navy came in late November 1941 and a contract for 500 fuzes in December. The first accepted fuzes came from the production line in September 1942. On January 5,1943 Lt. "Red" Cochrane, commanding the aft 5" battery on the light cruiser Helena, shot down a Japanese Val dive-bomber with the second of three salvos of VT-fuzed shells, near Guadalcanal. The fuzes were manufactured by the Crosley Corporation and this was the first kill of enemy aircraft.

Although primarily a supplier to the Navy for use in the Pacific and the Mediterranean theaters, Crosley fuzes were used with great success by the British against the V-1 buzz bomb, by the U.S. Army on the European continent in the defense of Antwerp against V-1 attacks and in the Battle of the Bulge.

In a post war interview, Lewis Crosley said that fuze production reached sixteen thousand five hundred units per day. The Crosley Corporation employed ten thousand people and worked around the clock, seven days a week. Mr. Crosley said, "We enlarged until . . . we were the largest employer and produced more than anybody in Cincinnati, including any of the other big companies located in Cincinnati at that time. We had some very, very secret and wonderful products that we produced in volume for the Armed Forces and we got a lot of credit for doing it." Bureau of Ordnance figures show that Crosley produced 5,205,913, or 24%, of the slightly more than twenty-two million proximity fuzes manufactured during the war.

The importance of the proximity fuze to the successful outcome of the Second World War is best stated by those who witnessed it's effectiveness.

James V. Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy said, "The proximity fuze has helped blaze the trail to Japan. Without the protection this ingenious device has given the surface ships of the Fleet, our westward push could not have been so swift and the cost in men and ships would have been immeasurably greater."

Prime Minister, Winston S. Churchill was quoted with "These so-called proximity fuzes, made in the United States.., proved potent against the small unmanned aircraft (V-1) with which we were assailed in 1944."

And Commanding General of the Third Army, George S. Patton said, "The funny fuze won the Battle of the Bulge for us. I think that when all armies get this shell we will have to devise some new method of warfare."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 05:01 PM

"Actually, the outcome of WWII hinged on three inventions:"

Much of the outcome also hinged on Enigma and the 'ultra secret'.

Too long to go into. Those who know about it will understand. Those who don't can look up Enigma as a code and the subsequent ramifications of the code having been 'broken' without the knowledge of the Nazis.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 05:35 PM

Yes, breaking the Enigma codes was crucial. The Japanese received a tremendous defeat at Midway also, because the USA had broken their military codes, and knew they were coming. So the Allies won the war in a technical research sense, and in an intelligence sense. The Allies also had the benefit of much greater production capacity, particularly on the part of the USA, which was protected by two huge oceans from either bombing or invasion threat.

Here are the technical areas the Germans did better in during the war:

88 mm Flak gun - a most deadly weapon, acquired from the Czechs.

Most formidable tanks after 1942 - such as the Tiger I, Panther, and Tiger II.

Me 109 - all round best fighter in the early going (although the Spitfire could match it).

Fw-190 - all round best fighter when it first came out (soon matched or maybe even surpassed, however, by various Allied fighters such as later Spitfires, P-47s, Mustangs).

jet aircraft - they were well ahead in that area, with the extraordinary Me 262 jet fighter.

rockets and ballistic missiles - they led the world in rocket development, but only armed with conventional explosive warheads. This caused some trouble to the Allies, but was not decisive in any way.

Type XXI U-Boat - A very advanced sub, but only a handful of them were in service during the last days of the war, so they had no discernable effect on the course of events.

The Germans had a tendency to scatter their efforts in too many directions at once, thus losing effectiveness overall. This was as true of their military strategy as it was of their scientific and military research and development efforts.

And here are some areas where the Japanese were ahead:

Zero fighter - best fighter in the Pacific in late '41 through '42. Best carrier-based fighter in the world at the time.

torpeoes - they definitely had the world's fastest, hardest hitting, and best torpedoes. This won them many naval battles.

expertise in night fighting - The Japanese navy was well trained in night attacks, and it served them well in 1942.

cruisers - the Japanese heavy cruisers, armed with Long Lance torpedoes, were the world's most effective cruiser force up to the end of the Guadalcanal campaign.

elite air and naval crews - The Japanese personnel at the beginning of WWII had the benefit of the world's most rigorous training, combined with much battle experience in China. This made them extremely effective. Most of these veteran crews, particularly the aircrews, were dead by the end of 1942, and it was utterly beyond the capability of Japanese training facilities to adequately replace them. From that point on, the US Navy inflicted huge casualties on the inexperienced Japanese replacements at battles such as the "Marianas Turkey Shoot".

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: pdq
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 05:53 PM

When it comes to codes...

                                              color me purple

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 06:37 PM

Saved me a bit of work there LH - many thanks

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 06:50 PM

Bruce, you and I have discussed this many times.
What you imagine to be facts, I do not.
Why waste time and energy on going over and over unverifiable assertions.

I firmly believe that the USA/UK had decided to go to war in 2002.
Based on this opinion, whether Saddam was complying or not becomes irrelevant.   The case for war was a deliberate lie.

More importantly, the war is perceived by a large majority worldwide to have been based on lies. That is what really matters, public perception; not a few arseholes arguing on an internet forum.

Every time another "joe public" thinks "my God, my govt lied to me", freedom moves one step closer...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 06:52 PM

Very well, Little Hawk, I tentatively bow to your apparently thorough information. I know I'm a bit fuzzy on which models of what were made when. However, I have much of this informantion in my library, so I will be rummaging through to check on a lot of this.

And Teribus, don't get too smug yet.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 07:09 PM

Hey Don,

Please don't attempt to recite any facts in relation to the Second World War, you'll only suceed in embarassing yourself.

Your rather extensive and detailed knowledge of history, exists only as a figment of your own imagination, doesn't need me to besmirch it, you do a pretty good job of that on your own.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 07:14 PM

Don is one bright cookie, IMO.

So much of this dates to the Battle of Malvian Bridge and Constantine's defeat of Maxentius. Gee, ain't history fun?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 07:26 PM

As I said, don't get too smug.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 08:20 PM

Gleaned from a history web site:

"On September 1st., 1939, 1.8 million German troops invaded Poland on three fronts; East Prussia in the north, Germany in the west and Slovakia in the south. They had 2600 tanks against the Polish 180, and over 2000 aircraft against the Polish 420. Their "Blitzkrieg" tactics, coupled with their bombing of defenceless towns and refugees, had never been seen before and, at first, caught the Poles off-guard. By September 14th. Warsaw was surrounded. At this stage the poles reacted, holding off the Germans at Kutno and regrouping behind the Wisla (Vistula) and Bzura rivers. Although Britain and France declared war on September 3rd. the Poles received no help - yet it had been agreed that the Poles should fight a defensive campaign for only 2 weeks during which time the Allies could get their forces together and attack from the west."

Now, 1.8 million German troops, 2600 tanks, and 2000 aircraft, all launched in a blitzkrieg against one country sounds like a pretty substantial war machine to me. Perhaps not by modern standards, but. . . .

At that time, could any other country mount an assault like that?

If Germany did not have the biggest, then it most certainly did have the deadliest and most aggressive war machine, and headed by a man whose goal was no less than conquest of the entire globe (that I can substantiate quite easily if you insist).

For a little refresher, you might take a look at THIS.

So once again I say, don't get too smug. When it comes to dishing crap, you are definitely in the lead.   

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 08:29 PM

Gentlemen, we are retelling the war, not reliving it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 08:41 PM

Hmmmmmm? Wonder how this thread has gotten highjacked with folks talkin' 'bout 60 year old tanks???

The rest of the world is talkin' 'bout Iraq???

Must have missed something here...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 08:42 PM

Teribus, this little contretemp started in response to Susu's Hubby trying to equate the potential world threat of Saddam Hussein to that posed by Adolf Hitler. I responded by stating that that was ridiculous (which it is) and commented that Hitler had at his disposal "the biggest, deadliest, and most aggressive war machine the world had ever seen." That's when you accused me of being a purveyor of crap. Granted, my remembrance of details of such things as when the 88 mm. was first mounted on German tanks was not accurate (amended by Little Hawk, and I have nothing against being corrected when I am in error), but the statement holds, as substantiated just above.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 08:49 PM

I can't understand why so many people still believe George W. Bush. The mountain of evidence says he lied and is still lying. On top of that, Katrina has showed him up for the incompetent he is. Where is he getting all that money from that he is spending in Iraq? Is he borrowing it from the fat cats for whom he cleaned out the treasury with his obscene tax give away?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 08:50 PM

Cross posted. Right you are, gentlemen. I must acknowledge Teribus' hit, a palpable hit. He managed to sucker me away from the main subject of his thread with one of his Weapons of Mass Distraction.

Now let us return to our regular broadcast.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 08:59 PM

'"the biggest, deadliest, and most aggressive war machine the world had ever seen."'

I agree with that, but would like to add something to it: What Hitler had was the initiative and from that he developed tempo.

The notion of tempo is overlooked often because we describe history as a series of 'connected' events. I will try to explain.

If I am fighting with someone--physically fighting--one of the things I need is tempo, an understanding of HIS tempo and the skill to interrupt it long enough to enforce my will at a time of my choosing. A move that does that will seem to be a 'move'. Fact is, it is a convergence of the aforementioned.

People misunderstood Hitler's complete lack of regard for treaties. They misunderstood his intentions. Subsequently, they could not respond in either a timely or an effective fashion. This can be demonstrated on a less complex scale. Years back when I seemed to get myself in trouble frequently, I had three folks approach me with what I thought were bad intentions. I stood with my arms at my sides and my hands open. Running was not an option because I had a very bad hip at the time--it was eventually replaced. Anyway, what kinda flashed through my head was a Clauswitz and his book, "On War". All I could think at the time was that my momma's eldest son was gonna need medical help if he didn't do something. When humour failed, I gave one fellow a quick punch in the stones, another a faceful of fingers and the third indicated that he didn't wish to be involved. I was able to walk away, and I did so happy with not having to hurt him.

Timing and tempo. If you let your opponent(s) have the initiative, you will be a long tome winning the fight--if at all, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 09:00 PM

PS

I no longer involve myself in that type of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 09:03 PM

Of course, Don...

T-Lite loves the attack but ain't too good on the defensive... Heck, next thing you know he'll have you arguin' over how amny elepahnts Hannibal tried to get thru the Alps...

WMD: Weapon of Mass Distraction...

Keep him in the middle of the ring... He ain't all that scarey now that he has blood on his hands...

Yeah, he'll try to divert attention onto others when it's his narrow mindedness a couple years ago now has him callin' folks "fu*ks* if they don't agree with him... Next thing ya know he'' blame my bad speelin' 'er typin' on why Bush invaded Iraq-mire???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 11:27 PM

"WMDs Found in Iraq Nov 9, 2005"

That's right! They found a guy named Walter Marvin Dimplesthwaite,
and a guy named Wibur Moosejaw Dezenclewicz -- two WMD's.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 11:35 PM

Well, I have both bleach and ammonia where I live. Hope I don't get busted because combined they can make a very obnoxious gas.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 12:55 AM

Bush's own people are admitting "we were wrong" about WMD's in Iraq. article here.

This is a funny article, if funny can be defined as mistakes that cost the lives of thousands of people. In this article, Sen. John McKain defends the decision to invade Iraq by stating that the intelligence the U.S. received regarding WMDs in Iraq was widely avalable to other countries as well (he mentions France and Russia) and he intimates that the same conclusion, based on the intelligence, was reached by all countries, i.e. there were WMDs in Iraq.

Towards the end of the article, there is a reference made to intelligence gathered on the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea, and we should believe these as well, because they are based on "international consensus."

On another note, if the Bush Administration is admitting "we were wrong" about WMDs in Iraq, and WMDs in Iraq is supposedly the reason we invaded, then is there is no longer a reason for us to occupy that country? Bush's Veterans Day speech has shifted the justification for invading Iraq, and, by extension, occupying that country by claiming it was fast becoming the central front for the terrorists.

I wish they'd get make up their mind. Oh wait, they already have. The real reason is because Iraq is sitting on top of a motherlode of oil.

As far as Osama bin Forgotten - it wouldn't surprise me if he were found sipping pomegranite juice poolside at the home of one of his rich relatives in Saudi Arabia. Satellites can read the license plates off cars from their lofty orbits but they can't find one exceptionally tall Arab wandering around in thedesert with a dialysis machine.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:01 AM

From the link above (good eye, GUEST):

About the Iraq War:

"Every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians, the French ... all reached the same conclusion,'' McCain said on CBS' "Face the Nation.''

About what's comin' up:

"Asked why people should believe U.S. claims about the nuclear plans of Iran given the failure of intelligence about Iraq, Hadley said there has been international consensus about Iran."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:04 AM

So, are the same group of folks who got it wrong in the first place gonna get it wrong in the second place, too?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:10 AM

..like they said about Nixon, "would you buy a used car from this man?"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:15 AM

And how many kids will die for it? And how much money will Halliburton make? And why do I feel like puking?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:15 AM

I hear that, GUEST.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:44 AM

Source for the Governments of all 15 countries who sat on the UN Security Council at the time UNSC Resolution 1441 was tabled and unanimously accepted was the UNSCOM Report of January 1999. That report stated that Iraq might have, stockpiles of CW and BW agents, munitions and precursor chemicals, it referred to the possibility of these items existing because according to Iraqi records in their possession these items appreared to be unaccounted for. The source stating that Iraq possessed WMD was not George W Bush, or Tony Blair. The intelligence services and advisors of both evaluated the what information they had and advised accordingly. Post-9/11 US most of those doing this evaluation had been doing so for a number of years for the previous administration.

UNSC Resolution 1441 did not solely concern itself with Iraq's possible possession of WMD, it addressed ALL the outstanding matters relating to Iraq from the time of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. So no goal posts moved, what the media tended to concentrate on at any given time is entirely their business, that business being the selling of their newspapers, it certainly is not targeted at providing the general public with balanced and informed opinion.

The MNF remains in Iraq at the request of the elected interim Iraqi Government and under the mandate of the United Nations, which oddly enough has just been extended until the end of 2006 if required. On 15th December the population of Iraq will elect a Government. If that Government immediately states that the troops of the MNF are no longer welcome in Iraq, those troops will be immediately withdrawn.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:49 AM

Ake,

"What you imagine to be facts, I do not."

And what YOU believe to be facts I see no evidence for.



"Why waste time and energy on going over and over unverifiable assertions."

SO, I shall ignore all further unsupported statements that you make.



"I firmly believe that the USA/UK had decided to go to war in 2002."

I agree: You believe this.



"Based on this opinion, whether Saddam was complying or not becomes irrelevant."

Since you base your decision on your belief, rather than the facts, you are correct that all else is irrelevant.





"The case for war was a deliberate lie."

You have failed to show, IMO, that it was either a lie, or deliberate.




Teribus,

I posted UNR 1441 and Blix's report on this thread, but it appears that many of the posters here do not bother to read any justification for something they have already decided is incorrect.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 09:53 AM

Beardebruce:
Most of us dreaded peaceniks have been campaigning against US-supported tyrannies since we were just out of diapers, while most of you war supporters are johhny-come-damn-latelies to humanitarian causes. Don't lecture me about demanding that Saddam honor UN resolutions. Did you insist that the USA honor the UN's demand that we NOT invade Iraq. Hypocrisy squared buddy.

Now, you answer my question.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:05 AM

GUEST,TIA - 14 Nov 05 - 09:53 AM

Just one question, where can I find the wording of this demand of the UN's that the United States of America NOT invade Iraq?

In the run up to the actual invasion, the US made it crystal clear exactly what construed "serious consequences" to mean. They also made it perfectly clear that the UNMOVIC round of inspections was not to degenerate into the game of hide and seek that Saddam had played before. The trigger for the "serious consequences" was if Iraq were to be found in material breach of UNSC Resolution 1441 - there were seven Material Breaches in all, prior to 17th March 2003.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:05 AM

P.S.

Are you really comfortable clinging to the "we had to blatantly defy the UN in order to support UN resolutions" argument? Would you take this kind of argument seriously if it was coming from, say, your kids?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:19 AM

Guest, TIA,

Show me YOUR threads about Sudan.

As I have stated, we were already at war- and show me a single UN resolution stating the US should NOT enforce the previous resolutions.

YOU have never answered my question about the VAST demand on the part of the anti-war folks for Saddam to comply, and avoid the need for the war in the first place.

Are you really comfortable clinging to the " it does not matter what Saddam did, we should let him get away with not complying with anything he does not want to " arguement? Would you take this kind of argument seriously if it was coming from, say, your kids?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: kendall
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:19 AM

He lied. period.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:29 AM

twist, deflect, cling, spin...