ampage Tube Amps / Music Electronics	For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum.

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

Re: Confirmed

4/22/2003 4:41 PM
Mark Lavelle	Re: Confirmed Why doesn't that jibe with this?[QUOTE]Numerous suspect substances have been tested but so far none have been found to be illicit weapons, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks told a news briefing at Central Command's war headquarters in Qatar. "We've not found any weaponized chemicals, biological agents or any nuclear devices at this point. That work is ongoing," Brooks said. … In some cases, the military has found substances that could have been turned into illicit weapons, but they were in quantities "too small to be weaponized" or they had another, more peaceful purpose such as crop fertilizer, Brooks said.[/QUOTE]

4/22/2003 4:41 PM

Mark Lavelle

Re: Confirmed

Why doesn't that jibe with this?[QUOTE]Numerous suspect substances have been tested but so far none have been found to be illicit weapons, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks told a news briefing at Central Command's war headquarters in Qatar.

"We've not found any weaponized chemicals, biological agents or any nuclear devices at this point. That work is ongoing," Brooks said.

… In some cases, the military has found substances that could have been turned into illicit weapons, but they were in quantities "too small to be weaponized" or they had another, more peaceful purpose such as crop fertilizer, Brooks said.[/QUOTE]

5/2/2003 1:19 AM
Steve A.	Hmmm... did anyone manage to save that article as a TXT, HTML or PDF file? After 7 days, you gotta pay NYT for access to the full article... http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/21/international/worldspecial/21CHEM.html Steve Ahola

5/2/2003 1:44 PM
Mark Hammer	Re: Iraq and Syria in collusion, hiding WMD? In the history of the world, power has been maintained or commanded by either having sufficient military strength to wrestle it away from everyone else who might want power in that region or niche, or by making one's competitors think that one has more power than one truly does. Indeed, one of the ways in which totalitarian regimes retain control is by making aggregious examples of people now and then to create the impression of power. In fact, there are generally not enough soldiers bullets and guns for such regimes to withstand uprisings, but you know if you can make people afraid enough, by doing things that are ugly enough, and public enough, that seems to work just as well a lot of the time. In the grand scheme of things, what gets labelled as "terrorism" generally arises when conventional military strength on one side of a power equation, either in terms of numbers or state of weaponry, etc., is lacking. If I don't have enough soldiers, guns, bullets, etc., to overcome and police you, then what I do is carry out targetted actions that produce enough fear that they can have a similarly "chilling" effect on my competitor. In other words, "terror" accomplishes what I don't have enough resources to accomplish through more conventional means. That's not a justification for it, merely an explanation of why it happens when it does. Alternatively, we have seen the rise of nuclear and other detentes between nations, in which it is the threat of massive indiscriminate consequence that leads to a standoff which perhaps numbers of soldiers could not achieve otherwise. Iraq, and some other countries, have used unconventional weaponry like bio- or chemo-warfare to enforce what an insufficiently sized army could likely not achieve. In still other cases, such as the China of the cultural revolution, it was the spying of one's friends and relatives that imposed a regime which also did not have enough soldiers to do the job. (And some might argue that the rise of traffic cams and automated radar guns on major throughfares is analogous to having non-police "spy" on you without warning as a substitute for having enough officers to effectively police a region. People's behaviour changes when they are being watched, but if they don't know whether they are being watched or not and believe they might be watched, it changes too. It's the "might be" that allows many municipalities that have insufficient resources to address social ills through policing to accomplish their goals. The same way that chemical bombs cost less than soldiers and guns, radar cams cost less than police and cruisers.) A close cousin of these kinds of regime impositions is the rumour of WMD or being spirited away. It was common for a while for some countries to neither confirm or deny that they possessed nuclear capability. In Israel, for instance, the hand they played with surrounding countries like Syria and Egypt was that maybe they had nukes, and maybe they didn't. Whether Pakistan or India actually has anything like a true working nuclear arsenal standing by at a button press or two is moot. However they regularly conduct nuclear tests to make each other think that they possess such a capability. The tests aren't cheap, but they are cheaper and easier to do than have a functioning nuclear weaponry and corresponding administration system in place. Much like terrorism, this allows one to accomplish what massive military resources could accomplish in the absence of those very resources. In other words, I don't have to sink money into troops, nukes, bombs, etc. All I have to do is make you think I have them. (In some ways not unlike the argument some evolutionary biologists have advanced for the emergence of piloerection in some species, where threat produces a visible enlargement of an animal as its hair stands on end and its back arches). This is the very, very long way of saying that there may be a helluva lot less there in both Iraq and Syria than many people think, simply because it has traditionally been in the interests of despots to make folks think there is more than that. It might be there since chemical warfare is, in some respects, more cost effective than conventional warfare so there is clearly an economic incentive to pursue it (and normally we would expect the moral disincentive to override the economic incentive amongst decent people). In the long run, though, don't be surprised if the smoking gun is little more than an index finger poking the raincoat out in conspicuous and ambiguous ways. If it gets the bank teller to hand over the money, what's the difference? If the Ba'athists and Hussein family had maintained a low-key lowcost lifestyle, there might be reason to suspect that whatever revenue that had acquired through non U.N.-approved means might have been directed towards military buildup, but most of the evidence points to these doofuses as simply skimming as much off the top as they could for their own luxury, so what the hell was left in the budget to finance all of this supposed military threat? Something, yes. But as much as would be needed over here to accomplish the same level of effectiveness as we believe and have claimed they have? I doubt it. As probably every schoolteacher and health professional on this continent and in Europe can tell you, any little perceived need to boost military might generally sucks billions away from the nation's treasury. In Iraq that money seems to have already gone the way of gold toilet seats and velvet-painting infested "love shacks" for the Saddam boys.

5/2/2003 1:44 PM

Mark Hammer

Re: Iraq and Syria in collusion, hiding WMD?

In the history of the world, power has been maintained or commanded by either having sufficient military strength to wrestle it away from everyone else who might want power in that region or niche, or by making one's competitors *think* that one has more power than one truly does. Indeed, one of the ways in which totalitarian regimes retain control is by making aggregious examples of people now and then to create the impression of power. In fact, there are generally not enough soldiers bullets and guns for such regimes to withstand uprisings, but you know if you can make people afraid enough, by doing things that are ugly enough, and public enough, that seems to work just as well a lot of the time.

In the grand scheme of things, what gets labelled as "terrorism" generally arises when conventional military strength on one side of a power equation, either in terms of numbers or state of weaponry, etc., is lacking. If I don't have enough soldiers, guns, bullets, etc., to overcome and police you, then what I do is carry out targetted actions that produce enough fear that they can have a similarly "chilling" effect on my competitor. In other words, "terror" accomplishes what I don't have enough resources to accomplish through more conventional means. That's not a justification for it, merely an explanation of why it happens when it does.

Alternatively, we have seen the rise of nuclear and other detentes between nations, in which it is the threat of massive indiscriminate consequence that leads to a standoff which perhaps numbers of soldiers could not achieve otherwise. Iraq, and some other countries, have used unconventional weaponry like bio- or chemo-warfare to enforce what an insufficiently sized army could likely not achieve.

In still other cases, such as the China of the cultural revolution, it was the spying of one's friends and relatives that imposed a regime which also did not have enough soldiers to do the job. (And some might argue that the rise of traffic cams and automated radar guns on major throughfares is analogous to having non-police "spy" on you without warning as a substitute for having enough officers to effectively police a region. People's behaviour changes when they are being watched, but if they don't *know* whether they are being watched or not and believe they *might* be watched, it changes too. It's the "might be" that allows many municipalities that have insufficient resources to address social ills through policing to accomplish their goals. The same way that chemical bombs cost less than soldiers and guns, radar cams cost less than police and cruisers.)

A close cousin of these kinds of regime impositions is the *rumour* of WMD or being spirited away. It was common for a while for some countries to neither confirm or deny that they possessed nuclear capability. In Israel, for instance, the hand they played with surrounding countries like Syria and Egypt was that *maybe* they had nukes, and *maybe* they didn't. Whether Pakistan or India actually has anything like a true working nuclear arsenal standing by at a button press or two is moot. However they regularly conduct nuclear tests to make each other *think* that they possess such a capability. The tests aren't cheap, but they are cheaper and easier to do than have a functioning nuclear weaponry and corresponding administration system in place. Much like terrorism, this allows one to accomplish what massive military resources could accomplish in the absence of those very resources. In other words, I don't have to sink money into troops, nukes, bombs, etc. All I have to do is make you *think* I have them. (In some ways not unlike the argument some evolutionary biologists have advanced for the emergence of piloerection in some species, where threat produces a visible enlargement of an animal as its hair stands on end and its back arches).

This is the very, very long way of saying that there may be a helluva lot less there in both Iraq and Syria than many people think, simply because it has traditionally been in the interests of despots to make folks think there is *more* than that. It *might* be there since chemical warfare is, in some respects, more cost effective than conventional warfare so there is clearly an economic incentive to pursue it (and normally we would expect the moral disincentive to override the economic incentive amongst decent people). In the long run, though, don't be surprised if the smoking gun is little more than an index finger poking the raincoat out in conspicuous and ambiguous ways. If it gets the bank teller to hand over the money, what's the difference?

If the Ba'athists and Hussein family had maintained a low-key lowcost lifestyle, there might be reason to suspect that whatever revenue that had acquired through non U.N.-approved means might have been directed towards military buildup, but most of the evidence points to these doofuses as simply skimming as much off the top as they could for their own luxury, so what the hell was left in the budget to finance all of this supposed military threat? Something, yes. But as much as would be needed over here to accomplish the same level of effectiveness as we believe and have claimed they have? I doubt it. As probably every schoolteacher and health professional on this continent and in Europe can tell you, any little perceived need to boost military might generally sucks billions away from the nation's treasury. In Iraq that money seems to have already gone the way of gold toilet seats and velvet-painting infested "love shacks" for the Saddam boys.

5/3/2003 2:29 AM
LFOscalator	Your explanation of terrorism explains scumbags like SH and OBL. But it doesn't really explain why suicide bombers exist. The suicide types are people who live in desparation. I don't believe they are crazy as many people have described them. Instead, their lives are in such utter dispair that they are willing to die for their cause because death looks like a viable alternative. The SH's and OBL's of the world take advantage of those in desparation by encouraging acts of suicide. Any leader who would encourage suicide bombers is a self-centered piece of shit.

5/3/2003 2:29 AM

LFOscalator

Your explanation of terrorism explains scumbags like SH and OBL. But it doesn't really explain why suicide bombers exist.

The suicide types are people who live in desparation. I don't believe they are crazy as many people have described them. Instead, their lives are in such utter dispair that they are willing to die for their cause because death looks like a viable alternative.

The SH's and OBL's of the world take advantage of those in desparation by encouraging acts of suicide. Any leader who would encourage suicide bombers is a self-centered piece of shit.

5/3/2003 4:25 AM
John Fisher	Are we now free from terrorist? Good post LFO and Mark. If you really sit down and think about suicide bombers and why anyone would do such a thing it is true that it is out of desparation. Like I said before, just corner a rat or even a bunny rabit and out of desparation he will do crazy things and attack you. They are so desparate because of their situation that they are even drivin to do such things. Not that it is right or that it is even a solution. Although things have apparently calmed down in Iraq and it seems like some type of victory, I still fear the after effects of this war. Actually you can't even call it a war as it was just a very powerfull force attacking a much lesser power of force so there wasn't enough mutual exchange of warfare to call it a war. Anyways, this event will undoubtedly create more terrorism and terrorists because like the cornered rat or even the soft white bunny rabit that when cornered, will go crazy on you. I still believe that the US and Britian were very wrong in attacking Iraq and on the other hand Saddam should have probably gave in just to spare the suffering of his people and the many lives lost instead of just trying to save his own self and position. This thing about WMD is a buch of balony. The US has more WMD stockpiled then anyone else in the world. Going into another country and bombing them is just as much terroism as is the so called terroist if not more so but because the so called terrorist are a lot smaller they are called terrorists. I am against terroist but it seems that the super powers have just created more of them and then condems them. How sad! John Fisher

5/3/2003 4:25 AM

John Fisher

Are we now free from terrorist?

Good post LFO and Mark.
If you really sit down and think about suicide bombers and why anyone would do such a thing it is true that it is out of desparation. Like I said before, just corner a rat or even a bunny rabit and out of desparation he will do crazy things and attack you.
They are so desparate because of their situation that they are even drivin to do such things. Not that it is right or that it is even a solution.
Although things have apparently calmed down in Iraq and it seems like some type of victory, I still fear the after effects of this war. Actually you can't even call it a war as it was just a very powerfull force attacking a much lesser power of force so there wasn't enough mutual exchange of warfare to call it a war.
Anyways, this event will undoubtedly create more terrorism and terrorists because like the cornered rat or even the soft white bunny rabit that when cornered, will go crazy on you.
I still believe that the US and Britian were very wrong in attacking Iraq and on the other hand Saddam should have probably gave in just to spare the suffering of his people and the many lives lost instead of just trying to save his own self and position. This thing about WMD is a buch of balony. The US has more WMD stockpiled then anyone else in the world. Going into another country and bombing them is just as much terroism as is the so called terroist if not more so but because the so called terrorist are a lot smaller they are called terrorists.
I am against terroist but it seems that the super powers have just created more of them and then condems them. How sad!

John Fisher

5/3/2003 4:18 PM

Michael Tousek

quote:
"If you really sit down and think about suicide bombers and why anyone would do such a thing it is true that it is out of desparation."

It's not just desparation. In the case of Islamoterrorism, it's shame, self-loathing, and an outright, thoroughly noxious hatred of the Jews. We're dealing with a sick culture, and we're not going to get a rational response out of its ultra-sick fringe no matter what tack we take. They fly into a fury every time a twig snaps or the wind changes direction. Being passive will encourage them, and being bold will provoke them to new violence, or so the theory goes.

The truth of the first part has been proven over the past decade, as islamoterrorists have bombed our embassies, killed our soldiers, and attempted to blow up the WTC even as we've sat back and done nothing. But I don't know that the latter part has ever been tried. It seems to me that applying overwhelming consequences to 911-style stunts (yes, I know that Saddam didn't fly the plane into the WTC, but they are both part of a larger theme) may very well deter a repeat of such behavior in the future -- especially if we follow it with efforts to reform the worst elements of the Arab world.

And what just happened in Iraq surely was a war. Either that, or the word "war" has no meaning. Our military fought their military. It was a lopsided war, but a war nonetheless.

And what the US just did in Iraq surely wasn't terrorism. Either that, or the word "terrorism" has no meaning. Our action was the result of of Iraq's unwillingness to comply with the terms of the surrender that ended the first Gulf War. We announced our intentions beforehand and provided Iraq with a feasible alternative -- that it disarm, as per the terms of the surrender. When Iraq dicarded that option and we did wage war, we waged it against its military forces, taking unprecendented pains not to harm its people. Now we're going to rebuild Iraq with its peace and prosperity as our goal. This fits no conventional understanding of terrorism that I'm aware of.

MT

5/3/2003 5:40 PM
LFOscalator	Michael, you said: "It's not just desparation. In the case of Islamoterrorism, it's shame, self-loathing, and an outright, thoroughly noxious hatred of the Jews." In other words, are you implying that there are not any Jews in Isreal that have a thoroughly noxious hate for Palestinians? I'm not picking on Jews here, but rather pointing out that hate is a universal human condition that can pemeate all people. To single out one side and say they are the purpetrators of hate, and not to recognize that the other side has its human failings as well, will do little to forward a lasting peace. In most war torn areas of the world, there is enough hate to go around on both sides of the conflict. LFO

5/3/2003 5:40 PM

LFOscalator

Michael, you said:

"It's not just desparation. In the case of Islamoterrorism, it's shame, self-loathing, and an outright, thoroughly noxious hatred of the Jews."

In other words, are you implying that there are not any Jews in Isreal that have a thoroughly noxious hate for Palestinians? I'm not picking on Jews here, but rather pointing out that hate is a universal human condition that can pemeate all people. To single out one side and say they are the purpetrators of hate, and not to recognize that the other side has its human failings as well, will do little to forward a lasting peace.

In most war torn areas of the world, there is enough hate to go around on both sides of the conflict.

LFO

Page 2 of 7