BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:35 AM

Teribus...Its quite permissible to call politicians liars,   they do it for a living!!

However ,its not good form to abuse venerable ladies, even for someone with a military background ....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:26 AM

"You know basically nothing about me and my view of myself. Yet you are perfectly willing to peg me."

I judge you on your comments here- if they do not represent you, try not making them. You have been making unsubstantiated statements and expecting them to be taken as true, while ignoring all evidence that supports any viewpoint you do not agree with. Typical God-delusion, to me.






Peace,

I try to look at the facts as known and as can be provided as evidence. I do not take what the administration says blindly, nor do I believe that everything they say is a lie.

I can build a nuclear device in about 2 months or less, if you let me have materials. Why should I believe that those who have threatened me, and my family, and my country, are any less capable?

The UN stated that there were prohibited materials unaccounted for- there were prohibited materials found in Iraq. Had Saddam complied, there would have been no need for war- yet none of the anti-war folks bothered to demand that. Why should I think, after being told to "STOP" a hell of a lot more than 3 time, that Saddam would not make up WMD with the materials that the UN had told him he should not have, and attack with scuds that he should not have had?

Check
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/abm-05zm.html

"Some 75 percent of the total U.S. population of 290 million people and 75 percent of its military bases are within 200 miles of the coast. The number of potential launch platforms is immense, with 130,000 registered merchant ships in 195 countries, NWIS said.

Thousands of SCUDs and other inexpensive short-range ballistic missiles have been dispersed, sold worldwide with some in countries where terrorist groups operate openly.

Iran test-launched a tactical ballistic missile from a ship last year and the threat has become much worse with the rapid proliferation of cruise missiles. China has already supplied many to Iran.

Some 70 countries already possess an estimated 75,000 anti-ship cruise missiles and many of them could be easily converted to land-attack weapons. At least 10 nations already have land-attack cruise missiles and their number is increasing, NWIS said"


So we should just ignore that Saddam was making missiles of a longer range than he was permitted? And that he had stockpiles of chemicals to produce WMD?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,A
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:21 AM

Bruce, I am simply amazed at how some, actually many, have their minds made up and won't or can't listen to sources that offer views that differ from theirs. Of course you are coreect about the UN info but fact is a treacherous item here. You need to offer items from Slate, Moveon.org or buzzflash.
To rebuke statements with "twist, deflect, cling, spin" appears to go beyond closed mindedness. It almost takes on the appearance of a disease. I take back "amazed", make that astounded. Even the NY Times, which is quoted oft by the left, prints none liberal accounts now and then.

It will take years for all the facts to be presented with regard to this issue. The fighter planes buried under the sands of Iraq barely got mention. The oil for food scandal which this administration could take credit for gets little play. Of course, we will still have the people who have a mindset pretending nothing has changed.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:10 AM

BB, I am jerking your chain. Just havin' some fun, at bloody last. Please don't go gettin' all pissed at me. You are simply holding the wrong end of the handsaw on this one. Have a good day, buddy. Won't bug you about it anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:07 AM

LOLOLOL

It sure shoots a few feet here, don't it? Best chuckle I've had in a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. C'mon, fess up BB. Ya gotta feel just a wee bit chagrinned, right?

Hey, I thought so too many years back. However, evidence over time--or rather, lack of evidence over time convinced me otherwise. Someday, someday soon I hope, you'll catch up.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:06 AM

You know basically nothing about me and my view of myself. Yet you are perfectly willing to peg me. There's plenty of evidence right there.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:04 AM

Peace,

Are YOU stating that we should believe the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, when we have all this proof otherwise?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:00 AM

But you insist on MY chasing down references that you then refuse to read? Sounds like you have a highly inflated view of yourself- Who died and made YOU God?

You have yet to provide any evidence of either the truth of your statements or the illogic of anything I have brought up.


I doubt very much if such an attempt at reasoning will have any effect on any future wars- You can't defend your viewpoint even when you are in the majority.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:56 AM

Hey, guys and gals, the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States says there are no WMDs in Iraq. No comments on that?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:52 AM

No, in other words, any attempt at discussion with you is a waste of time. I've got better things to do than chase down references for you and chase you around your loopy illogical circles.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:47 AM

Careful Kendall you get into trouble stating that people lie on this thread - or does that only apply depending upon who the accusation is aimed at.

Pity for George W Bush, Tony Blair all their defence Analysts, Security Advisors and Intelligence Agencies. Pity for all those associated with the decisions taken by the Representatives and Governments making up the members of UN's Security Council. Because counter to what you believe Kendal - None of them lied. But maybe if they had included the phrase:

"To the best of our knowledge" with regard to Iraq's WMD everything would have been alright - honest mistake Eh???

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:36 AM

In other words, you have no supporting evidence to offer for discussion.

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

twist, deflect, cling, spin...

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:15 AM

I hear that, GUEST.

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: 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 - 01:04 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:42 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.