IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Shrub is singlehandedly undoing years of foriegn policy work
Ok, maybe not single-handedly, but I can't begin to understand how Cheney could let him do stuff this stupid.

1) He calls off all negotiations with N. Korea, and then doesn't start anything back up in it's place... Letting a "rogue state" develop whatever it damn well pleases willy-nilly, giving them a better bargaining position the next time we have to deal with them. Not only that, but things were starting to look pretty positive over there until he called off the talks.

2) He backs out of the Kyoto treaty, and doesn't offer any alternative solutions. Nope, it's just me and the kooks, baby! Even his own scientists show him up on the same day he announces the move.

3) National Missile Defense. Yeah, let's unilaterally break an old treaty in such a way that it practically forces our former enemies to take up opposition to the move in order to save face. Easier than making Alaska's senator swallow leaving the Aleutians out of a Denver-based system...

4) Now, he's backed out of the bacteriological warfare treaty that the UN was working on, and apparently, once again, we're the only nation that is not only not interested in the current plan, but not even willing to offer any alternatives.

Basically, since Shrub has taken office, he's "spent" the goodwill of his predecessor in forigen policy by basically sticking the big middle finger in the face of all of our allies, as well as a few enemies. I thought Shrub was supposed to be his father's son, even if it was through all of his father's cronies, but this just takes the cake. Oh, and #2 does make sense from being his father's son viewpoint, but the rest sure as hell don't.
New just spent a few hours revewing Potsdam
with the aid of a hopefully accurate mini series. Shrub so far is saying to the edge folk, that kissing ass is done, to the central folk I have problems, can you help me. Star wars is not aimed at Russia or China, it is aimed at rudimentary planetary defence. Maybe it will not be needed but if you tested the "beliefs" of the crew in here it may be a nescesity item. ger cryin out loud some of these folks watch anime for fun :)
thanx,
bill
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
New Tom Tomorrow feels our pain
[link|http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2001/07/23/tomo/index.html|[link|http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2001/07/23/tomo/index.html|http://www.salon.co...o/index.html]]

It becomes harder to lampoon Dubya every day. The actuality of his behavior - stands alone.

Altogether now --







We Told You So
New sumbitch outa be arrested for spying :)
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
New On global warming
"The vast majority of scientists in the world believe that global warming is a real and imminent threat."

The oft-referenced letter signed by 1600 U.N. scientists "confirming" global warming? Did you know the chairman of the committee that drafted it has disavowed the executive summary that the U.N. put out? He said the findings showed the opposite. In fact, he is one of 17,000 scientists who signed the letter saying that there is no compelling evidence.

Not that the 1600 may not be the ones who are right, but if we're going to do "argument from authority" we should at least make sure the "authority" we quote said what we think he did.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
New I'd read that too
but didn't think about it when I posted yesterday.

Darrell Spice, Jr.

[link|http://home.houston.rr.com/spiceware/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore

New I'm looking for a reference
I got the info from a John Stossel special "Tampering With Nature." I've got the PDF's of the actual U.N. report and I'm trying to find the relevant cites.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
New Here's a good quote from the report
Remember, this is the very [link|http://www.ipcc.ch/|U.N. group report] that is constantly referenced by global-warming activists.
The basic understanding of the energy balance of the Earth system means that quite simple models can provide a broad quantitative estimate of some globally averaged variables, but more accurate estimates of feedbacks and of regional detail can only come from more elaborate climate models. The complexity of the processes in the climate system prevents the use of extrapolation of past trends or statistical and other purely empirical techniques for projections.

Call me a skeptic, but that doesn't sound to me like a ringing pronouncement that global warming has been confirmed.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
New There's More
Richard Lindzen, a meteorology professor at MIT, was part of the 11 member team that prepared a report comissioned by the NAS on climate change.

See here: [link|http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606|http://opinionjourn...?id=95000606]

Last week the National Academy of Sciences released a report on climate change, prepared in response to a request from the White House, that was depicted in the press as an implicit endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol. CNN's Michelle Mitchell was typical of the coverage when she declared that the report represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."

As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is simply untrue. For starters, the NAS never asks that all participants agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.

-----
Steve
New I dunno
1not familiar with
 
2)a) Congress wouldn't ratify it anyway.
b) Interestingly enough, now that the US is out of the picture, the other countries made changes to Kyoto that we pushed for. Appears to me like the other countries didn't want to work with us.
c) as an individual, you CAN make a difference - ie. I use a manual [link|http://www.reelin.com/|Reel Mower] for mowing my yard. No gas usage, no pollution, no noise. Other things come to mind like gas-electric hybrid cars.
 
3)I'm all for a defensive weapons race, certainly much better than an offensive weapons race.
 
4)haven't made up my mind on this - I'm sceptical that anything could be done to inforce a ban.

I do find it interesting that the other countries love to harp "we don't need the USA", and yet they get so upset when we're not "standing with them".

Darrell Spice, Jr.

[link|http://home.houston.rr.com/spiceware/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore

New I could understand it if...
...he actually offered any alternatives at all to any of the above stated problems. Instead, he has basically taken the ball and gone home, and refused to even offer any alternatives in most cases.

Korea: Trust me, it's Bad. "Rogue" state that would love to get it's hands on a nuke or 15, backed by China, with massive starvation problems exacerbated by a very corrupt central government with a strong army. Not a real threat to the U.S. in the sense of being able to directly attack us, but if they go wild, they could screw up Asia before we could do much about it. Note that they have theatre missile capacity - they launched a missile over Japan not too long ago. Combine that with several suspected nuke programs, and they look a lot more scary than Iraq ever did. That, and China backs them.

Defensive Arms Race: I'd love it too - but I'm not worried that it will spark a defensive arms race - I'm worried it will spark an OFFENSIVE arms race, as U.S. detractors attempt to invent decoy equipment that can evade our defensive measures.

Kyoto: It's okay to disagree with people. It's ok to admit that Congress might not even pass it. It's not okay to throw everything out the window because your oil buddies don't want it to happen, which is pretty much the noise that's been coming out of the White House, as opposed to any serious conversation on the issue. I'm doing what I can too - my next car will be a Toyota Prius, hell, we might even get two. (BTW, I test-drove one - nice car! A little noisy at high speeds, but there are no power issues at all with them.) When I finally get a lawn, I will use a manual mower, not electric or gas. Good exercise, too.

Bacteriological Warfare: You're right, it's probably not enforceable. It's also better than nothing IMO - it's a stepping stone to the next agreement which will go further, etc.

What I'm upset about is that Shrub isn't just backing away - he's actively throwing stuff out the window and not offering anything in it's place.
New Not quite
At least on the Bact. Warefare issued, they've promised to present an alterantive proposal by September or October
Jay O'Connor

"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New In other words...
..."This hyar AdminisSTRAYshun don't want no treety's with them 'yar Yero-PEONs! Whazzat? We gotta have one?!? Waal, Hokay, we'll come up with are OWN "plan" in a cuppla months or so. Now shaddup 'n git me a brandy!

Basically, you have confirmed exactly what Inthane said: Scrap what's out there and don't have an alternative (until the polls say we gotta, and after we "confer" with our "benefactors"...er, high-level experts, at Exxon...).
jb4

(Resistance is not futile...)
New Of course
Scrap what's out there...

If what's out there is worse then useless, sure
Jay O'Connor

"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New Exactly why...
4) haven't made up my mind on this - I'm sceptical that anything could be done to inforce a ban.

That's why the US backed off on this one. Basically, Iraq showed that even with pretty much free run of a country and surpise inspections, it's almost impossible to nail someone building this kinda stuff if they're trying to do it in secret. We never got anything good on Iraq until a defector actually showed us where the stuff was.

The impossibility of effective enforcement, coupled with the fact that attempted enforcement would open up Pharma's and other companies to basically giving away intellectual property, made this deal a bad treaty to begin with.

Keep in mind that this 'treaty' was basically put together by the guy leading the effort for the treaty after 7 years of negotiations had not gotten very far
Jay O'Connor

"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New NMD == waste of money.
The first nuke bound for the USA will prolly arrive in a backpack or suitcase.
--
Peter
Shill For Hire
New That and history has shown that defensive arms races
never work. Both World Wars involved defensive arms races...and the countries that relied on them both lost.
Stainless steel traps breed stainless steel rats.
New What would you have said in the 30s? 50s?
Was the atomic bomb a waste of money? (Heisenberg about single-handedly convinced the Nazis it was, and he should be canonized for that).

Was the space program a waste of money?

Airplanes?

Telephones?

Every new tech, every new system has always had someone saying exactly that. "Its a waste of money, it'll never work, why bother".

And giving up because a solitary bomb might be carried in, well, that's true enough. Are you going to talk the RN into stopping patrolling their bases, cause, after all, someone could walk up to the base, and detonate one, so it would be pointless?

So *in that case*, its pointless. But since, by definition, you don't know what case is about to come up.. be prepared for as much as you can.

Maybe intercepting ballistic missiles is almost impossible with other projectiles. (I don't think it is, but we'll see).

BTW, the RN *has* an excellent anti-missile system. (Seawolf?). The write ups on it I've seen all said to the effect of ~"If this were made and sold by the US, it would be standard equipment for every Western country".

Which leads me to believe that its not an impossible thing to do. And being prepared for one eventuality is a good thing.

Addison
New Question...

BTW, the RN *has* an excellent anti-missile system. (Seawolf?). The write ups on it I've seen all said to the effect of ~"If this were made and sold by the US, it would be standard equipment for every Western country".

This anti-missile system, protects the ship, right?

Stainless steel traps breed stainless steel rats.
New Re: Question...
Sorry. Its not ballistic missile defense but a localized anti-missile defense. Ship, task force, etc. I think they've also now got a land-based version for base defense (which would be like the Patriot) (Which was cancelled by President Carter because it had the potential to be ABM) (In theory).

Addison
New The same Patriot missile system used in Desert Storm?
and which also had a success factor of 1% (or something like that)?
Stainless steel traps breed stainless steel rats.
New The very same.
But DS wasn't a fair comparison... City defense wasn't what it was built for.

So I don't know how effective it was, or would have been. Personally, I thought it was rather ineffective. But its use in DS was political, without regard for its use.

(remember, it was *designed* as anti-aircraft, and is good enough to - sometimes - catch semi-ballistic missiles.)

Addison
New Interesting points
Was listening to a British guy from Oxford interviewed on NPR yesterday and he made two interesting points concerning the US and international treaties

1) The US takes treaties very seriously; far more seriously than most of the other signers, usually. As a result, the US is far less likely to sign treaties it doesn't like

2) The US tends to honor treaties it doesn't sign anyway, if it agrees with the principles and goals of the treay but not the implementation
Jay O'Connor

"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New Is that bad?
Ok, maybe not single-handedly, but I can't begin to understand how Cheney could let him do stuff this stupid.

One point: Bush has a damn good crew up there. Very smart. Very good. One of the things you can't complain is that he's surrounded himself with people who are stupid.

He calls off all negotiations with N. Korea, and then doesn't start anything back up in it's place.

Negotiations for what? I've not studied up on this situation, but North Korea is in deep doo-doo. I don't know what "concessions" they were offering, but I suspect that the "negotiations" were for "what are you gonna give us"?

Letting a "rogue state" develop whatever it damn well pleases willy-nilly, giving them a better bargaining position the next time we have to deal with them. Not only that, but things were starting to look pretty positive over there until he called off the talks.

Positive how? And according to who? You'll have to fill me in, What was North Korea about to do?

He backs out of the Kyoto treaty, and doesn't offer any alternative solutions. Nope, it's just me and the kooks, baby!

Ok. Maybe I missed a spot on CNN. But the "treaty" was under discussion, no? Only Congress can ratify a treaty. He pulled us out of the treaty discussion, right?

I can play devil's advocate here, and point out that this might not be bad. If you want to worry about global environmental impact, and you then exempt the "dirtiest" places, are you gaining a lot?

I find it somewhat hard to argue with their stated reasoning there. Basically, developing nations (including some big ones), being exempted, would impact negatively US-based businesses, and citizens. Companies based there wouldn't be forced to pay for the amount of cleaning up and prevention, that they would be in the US.

Which logically follows, that companies would then start up in those countries, move production there, and start polluting. Is this a gain?

National Missile Defense. Yeah, let's unilaterally break an old treaty in such a way that it practically forces our former enemies to take up opposition to the move in order to save face.

First off, the USSR broke said treaty. (Yes, lack of maintenance has them back in compliance :)). Secondly, there's only one other party to the treaty, the USSR, now Russia. (IIRC). China - not signatory. North Korea - not signatory. I don't know the status of Former Soviet States.

Secondly, either party can exit the treaty, with notice.

If its bothering the Chinese and Koreans So Damn Much, why aren't they screaming to sign the treaty, too?

Seems to me that that would be the "logical" step, get a treaty for EVERYBODY to sign.........

Secondly, did you see where Putin/Bush are moving ahead with offensive cuts?

So. The Russian complaints are dropping, because of concessions/negotiations.

Is that "stupid"?

"We want to do this." "Well, we don't want you to" "What if we do this?" "Hmmm... ooookay, maybe, we can work with that".

Seems to me that this is *good* foriegn policy.

Now, he's backed out of the bacteriological warfare treaty that the UN was working on, and apparently, once again, we're the only nation that is not only not interested in the current plan,

Only?

And again, we might have backed out of the development of said treaty. But have you looked at the reasons? Again, not implausible, especially given past history.

he's "spent" the goodwill of his predecessor in forigen policy by basically sticking the big middle finger in the face of all of our allies, as well as a few enemies.

I can't really see where Clinton had a ton of "goodwill" there to spend. Maybe I'm missing something.

But OTOH, so damn what? Most of our "allies" are fair-weather at best. Most of our enemies only respect strength and ability.

I can't see where what you've enumerated is "stupid" with those factors.

Addison
New Re: Shrub is singlehandedly undoing years of foriegn policy
Kyoto Accord is a trash document. The limits it places on this hemisphere are not attainable. Europe has a much greater nuclear energy capacity and can make most of the levels...we can't...not even close...neither can the Canadians.

So...are ya'll pro-Kyoto...then either tell all the idiots to green light nuclear power or shut the fsck up.

Its a waste of paper in its current form.

Oh...and....

did anybody notice the cold war was over? So whats the big issue with trying to agree with the new regime that limits on missile defense designed for ICBM (nukes) really should be modified to allow defense against such weapons...especially since we know now that we won't be shooting them at each other.

N. Korea....so we have to be nice to someone who spits at us because they might get nukes? Refer back to Missile Defense.

Bacterial Warfare Treaty...another waste of paper.

Jesus people...find something to bitch about that makes fucking sense, will you? Alaskan Reserve...you've a right to bitch...not offering strengthened water standards to replace Clinton's absurd ones...sure...but those 4 items are really nothing to write home about....except that the media wants you to think that they point to some impending disaster.

Um...er...well...

I have no choice!

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New OK.. but if the cold war is over:
Here are our budget priorities (per recent note from CDI (Center for Defense Information - in DC)).


FY 2002 Discretionary Budget Request
(Budget Authority in $ Billions)

Military: 325
Education: 45
Health: 41
Justice: 30
Housing Assistance: 30
Natural Resiurces & Environment: 26
International Affairs: 24
Veterans Benefits: 24
Science & Space: 24
Training Employment & Social Services: 20
Transportation: 16
General Government: 15
Other Income Security: 13
Economic Development: 10
Social Security & Medicare: 7
Agriculture: 5
Energy: 3

Cold war over? With mil. budget ~ equal to ALL OTHERS listed - and this is the 'discretionary budget' only! NOT - whatever horrific leftover / committed trillions from previous appropriations: are in process of spending. (That would be another thread).

Nahhh.. in our One Party with Two Right Wings: there will always be funding for Loral and GE and Sandia -- even if all other countries converted to Buddhism and sacked all the Warfare-oriented Churches in their backyards and burned all the inciting documents claiming Gawd is on *OUR* side.

And you can *see* the physical and emotional evidence of the above priorities daily in every Murican city and emergency ward (and the intellectual consequence maybe in every NT-server farm ordered even.. this year? - to keep IT in there somewhere). Drugs, 'postal', road rage, 24/7 - all the symptoms and consequences are there. (And the walled enclaves for the rich - shall fall like paper fences.. once a certain? Have Lots/Have Nothing ratio is reached).

Any idea of the % of Muricans whose net worth is *0* (or below, counting CC debt) ??? I lost the number.

I read an old Colliers from the '40s - '47? - a serialized story entitled,
"The Smuggled Atom Bomb".
Peter's comment is just the 2001 version of a realization from the first:

Spend the Loral et al $100-500B [eventually, of course] for nice pretty ABM? and it will come in through the borders: as secure as M$ Exchange. Or a small vial + rented Cessna. Or ammonium nitrate and... a thousand more ways. There's no need for er Instant delivery. Time is malleable, when yer doin Gawd's Work\ufffd and all. Why leave a nice retraceable missile trajectory ?? Hmmm?

"Defense" my ass - this is prototypical pork, wrapped in 'Murican Peepul Security' of the most cynical and egregious sort - as could only be sold successfully to a nation of consumption-besotted sheep, easily swayed by any mention of Flags. And how Good we all are. (self-adoration: our most important product)

ABM's only purpose is to further concentrate the Wealth in fewer pockets -- that "concentration curve" is in no danger of reaching an inflection point, so long as we have Repos of both parties thinking only of their (and peers) further personal and massive aggrandizement. And few noticing the curve. While safely grazing.



Glad to hear the cold war is over, BP.


A.
Ashton

PS - remember too, the nature of jobs created by the mil-industrial complex - a few high-paid, hi-skilled jobs are created, true - most of the $ goes into cost+ noncompetitive contracts: and directly to Corp heads. Zippo for any of the millions currently working below-poverty-level, whose numbers grow. And presumably: fester (?) I know some of those.
New Re: OK.. but if the cold war is over:
There's no need for er Instant delivery. Time is malleable, when yer doin Gawd's Work\ufffd and all. Why leave a nice retraceable missile trajectory ?? Hmmm?

Ash: You're going to die. So why bother with [changing] when or how?

Just don't worry about anything, right?

Addison
New Priorities.
Worry? pointless. If it's important enough to 'worry' - then act.

What can that 100-500 $B be used for which might.. be of some help:

clean water? training a new competent class of teachers? reforming the Medico- and Military- Industrial complexes?
Ending "Wars" on drugs, poverty ____ actually on: citizens. Building govt-subsidized housing, infrastructure repair, energy conservation via actually enforced CAFE standards and __ __ __ and beginning to think through the problems without slogans?


The dead have no worries. The alive merely have challenges to use their intelligence. Most would rather watch TeeVee, and regurgitate slogans about "can't". From some party's platform of driftwood.

Priorities.
New Support Faith Based Missle Defense Systems.
New Believe that's called, 'karma'___________________:-\ufffd
New That's what we have now.
"Please God, don't let them nuke us!!"

"By God, if you nuke us, we'll blow you to hell!"

Addison
New Exactly How Hard Do you think it is...
to hit a target that's broadcasting it's location with a GPS on board?

You'll have to admit its really sad about the intimidation techniques at MIT.

(From Salon.com)


The rigged missile defense test
The target destroyed in the "successful" defense shield test contained a global positioning satellite beacon that made it easier to detect. Why has the media mostly ignored the story?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason


July 31, 2001 | The Pentagon and the Bush administration are determined to sell the American people a national missile defense system that will probably increase tensions with allies and adversaries and will surely cost more than $100 billion. Their latest marketing exercise took place on the evening of July 14, when a "kill vehicle" launched from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific smashed into a rocket sent up from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

Precisely according to plan, the target was instantly vaporized on impact -- and along with it, or so the Pentagon's uniformed salesmen hoped, the perennial concern that missile defense won't work. With the cooperation of major news organizations and conservative pundits, that test provided an enormous propaganda boost to the Bush proposal, which conveniently enough had been brought up to Capitol Hill by Defense Department officials just two days earlier.

There was only one thing that all the happy salesmen forgot to mention about their latest test drive. The rocket fired from Vandenberg was carrying a global positioning satellite beacon that guided the kill vehicle toward it. In other words, it would be fair to say that the $100 million test was rigged.

No wonder, then, that Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, the Air Force officer who oversees the NMD program, told the Washington Post on the eve of the test that he was "quietly confident" about the outcome. The general knew about the GPS beacon, while the reporters didn't.

This rather significant aspect of the July 14 mission remained hidden in the fine print until a few days ago, when the Pentagon confirmed the role of the GPS device to a reporter for Defense Week magazine. But of course most Americans still don't know why the test functioned so smoothly, because the Defense Week scoop was either buried or ignored by the mainstream media, which had so obediently celebrated the technological breakthrough two weeks earlier.

And as Kadish later acknowledged, each of the previous three tests -- two of which failed anyway -- had also involved the use of a guidance beacon. (To longtime observers of the missile-defense effort, this latest news recalled the notorious "Star Wars" scandal, when investigators discovered that a target had been secretly heated to ensure that it would be picked up by the interceptor's infrared sensor.)

Reuters was among the few news organizations that bothered to cover the Defense Week story. The wire service quoted a Pentagon official who "conceded that real warheads in an attack would not carry such helpful beacons." Probably not, although we can always hope that the Iranians or the North Koreans or the Chinese will attach to each incoming nuke a loudspeaker that screams "come and get me!"

Unfortunately, weapons experts agree that even the most primitive enemy missiles are more likely to carry a very different kind of accessory, namely, decoys designed to fool the computerized sensors aboard the kill vehicle.

While the missile launched from Vandenberg on July 14 did spit out a single Mylar balloon as a symbolic decoy, that scarcely challenged the kill vehicle's capacity to select the correct target -- particularly because there was no GPS beacon on that shiny balloon. In real warfare, an incoming missile is expected to deploy multiple decoys of varying shapes and sizes to lure the kill vehicle astray. Past tests have indicated that these simple fakes work far more reliably than the complex technology designed to detect them.

Eventually, the truth about the inherent problems of national missile defense may emerge in congressional hearings. But meanwhile, the Pentagon and the Bush White House mean to stifle any dissent about the capabilities of their favorite toy. They have repeatedly sought to reclassify documents that show that the system doesn't function as advertised. And within the past few weeks, they have blatantly attempted to intimidate Theodore Postol, a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is the country's leading critic of missile defense.

In early July, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, Defense Department officials asked MIT to confiscate the reclassified report from Postol and to "investigate [his] actions." At first MIT president Charles Vest, no doubt worried about millions of dollars in defense research grants to his university, moved to comply with that request. Only when Postol protested publicly did MIT back down.

Bogus tests and bullied critics are the hallmarks of a defense establishment that fears facts. With billions in contracts at stake and bellicose ideologues in power, the salesmen for national missile defense must conceal the many defects in their dangerous product. And the press corps, reverting to the bad habits of the Cold War, has done little so far to penetrate the Pentagon's propaganda.

So when the next "successful" missile-defense test is announced with fanfare and fireworks, don't necessarily believe what you hear. You are the buyers targeted by this massive sales effort -- and you should most certainly beware.

New Thanks, Mike - wouldn't have found that one. LRPD below:
Can those of you in the back hear me?
I tell ya - the LRPD Knows All.



Pentagon sharing Ad agencies with M$ now?
Summary of the Salon article:

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first -
New Eerier and eerier. LRPD speaks again:
How much more blacker could this album cover get? None more blacker.


! ! !
New Only one question
Was the defensive missile homing in on the GPS, or was the GPS just there for the Runners of the Test to accurately track the incoming missile?

In other words, if the defence missile didn't use the signal, then all your feathers are fluffed up for nothing.
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
New Also..
...it depends on what the test was about. If they were testing target acquisition *and* the missle could home in on the GPS, then the test was mybe bogus

Even then, maybe not. How many people here write software and test it only in production for the first time? Not many, I hope Sometimes you test with mocked up data simply to test other processes than data collection. Think about how many tests and regression tests you run on your software before fielding it...now think about that development process applied to a problem this difficult?

Think about it, hitting a target that far away moving that fast with a bullet also moving that fast is no easy feat in itself, even if you do no where it is. It's completely understandable to test your ability to hit the target knowing it's GPS coordinates before testing your ability to aquire the target independently.

For that matter, knowing GPS coordinates probably only gets you in the right part of town, are GPS coordinates accurate to within inches for targets moving several hundred miles an hour?
Jay O'Connor

"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New Pretty hard.
Because I don't know what that beacon was doing.

I don't know if it was "homing" on it (and actually, a GPS beacon would be *less precise, I would think*, than a radar signal.

I don't know if it was there for range safety. Many missile tests are conducted with remote-controlled planes - does that mean that they home on the RF, or what they're supposed to?

Its possible it was "rigged". But even so, that's still damned impressive. :)

If you're simulating things that aren't yet built - I don't know. There's lots of unknowns here. Worth asking about.

But when you write programs, ever dummy up some code, make some placeholder code, becuase you'll put it in later?

Is it then a "scam" that it compiles?

Or are you testing things, not just that code?

Lots of reasons, you're presuming the worst.


Addison
New I more interesting in why this was mentioned after the test.

If you're simulating things that aren't yet built - I don't know. There's lots of unknowns here. Worth asking about. But when you write programs, ever dummy up some code, make some placeholder code, becuase you'll put it in later?

Is it then a "scam" that it compiles?

If I write code to debug something, I'm up-front about it. My boss knows that the work is in development and that I've got critical sections stubbed out.


If the GPS was just a debugging tool, why wasn't the military up-front about it. It doesn't appear that they were since the GPS wasn't mentioned until after the test was complete.


Personally, I feel a lot better about this anti-missile system if the Pentagon had been more forthwrite about the effectiveness of the patriots missiles in Desert Storm.


Now they remind me of Clinton promising never to touch a women again.


Expand Edited by Simon_Jester Aug. 2, 2001, 12:07:27 AM EDT
New Re: I more interesting in why this was mentioned after the t
I don't tell my boss the system works flawlessly and then mention the fact that it wasn't running on real data.

Not quite the same thing.

We don't know what the purpose of the GPS signal was. (Personally, I don't think it would be useful for targetting at those speeds).

What we have is the press - who doesn't understand most of these things, saying "AHA!" Well.... they don't get Virus alerts right, why do you think they bother to check the math on their presumptions?

They said the test was a success. That it might well be.

(They also have had complete failure and claimed success up until the project was killed) [link|http://vectorsite.tripod.com/avcruz3.html#m6|Best reference] I could find on short notice - the Skybolt - all tests were reported as successes - despite the fact that apparently all that we tested was the law of gravity).

But if Marketing asks you "how's the project going along" - do you say "fine, coming along great, all the tests are working" or "well, as soon as we get around to adding all the functionality we haven't, we'll know"?

If the GPS was just a debugging tool, why wasn't the military up-front about it. They weren't, the GPS wasn't mentioned until after the test was complete and they claimed it worked flawlessly.

I don't know that at all.

I know that a Salon writer claims that. I've also seen Salon print some utter trash. I don't recongnise the author.

I don't know that they disclosed their whole system. They might well have mentioned it - this isn't necesarily a "secret". (If it was, then why are you complaining that it came out)?

You're presuming that it was a coverup, that its bad, etc. etc. etc.

Well, you (and I) don't have the INFORMATION to know.

claimed it worked flawlessly.

I don't know what they were testing. That's why they call it "secret".

I mean, hells bells, this was going to happen. No matter HOW well it *did* work, SOMEBODY was going to raise hell about the fact they fired it from a known launch site at a known time, etc. etc. etc.

Well, shit. That's why they CALL IT TESTING.

Now, there's a possibility that yes, there was something nefarious about that. But not necesarily... *All such tests* pump out TONS of telemetry data. Are you saying that putting a broadcasting "black box" on the *test* is nefarious?

I feel a lot better about this anti-missile system if the Pentagon hadn't been shown to be lying back with the patriots missiles in Desert Storm.

Well, get over it already.

The Patriot wasn't built for anti-missile. It was built for anti-aircraft, and it works not-so-bad for that. They *might* intercept missiles, and so they were deployed *for political use*.

Technical abilities be dammed.

Now, I think you're one of us who derides the common issue of some dumbass doing something that technically is dumb as hell, and that you shouldn't measure the solution as "bad" because of PHBs in the works.

Well, that's the Patriot system. It was put out where it didnt' belong, where it wasn't specced to be, and AFAIK, it worked *as well as it was designed to*.

(Which wasn't built for city defense)

Yes, they might be lying their ass off about this test.

No, the fact that they had telemetry coming from the target doesn't mean that they definately were.

Addison
New Actually it *IS* the same thing.

Not quite the same thing.
[...]
What we have is the press - who doesn't understand most of these things, saying "AHA!" Well.... they don't get Virus alerts right, why do you think they bother to check the math on their presumptions?
They said the test was a success. That it might well be.

My boss doesn't understand what I do. He's exactly like the press in this manner - even to jumping on an 'AHA!' when they think they understand what happened, and it wasn't what they thought.



But if Marketing asks you "how's the project going along" - do you say "fine, coming along great, all the tests are working" or "well, as soon as we get around to adding all the functionality we haven't, we'll know"?


If you fake them out, by saying buying a plasma flat screen and then claim it's the LCD panel your company has been working on, you get fired and you don't get any more money from your investors. There was a LCD panel maker that just ran into this.


Like it or not, it's a trust issue. The pentagon claimed, for whatever reason, that the Patriot was working near perfectly. Originally they claimed success rates during Desert Storm were 98%+ percent. No one FORCED them to say this.


Outside investigators looked into the matter and began to question these reports. A Congressional Hearing was opened up and the Pentagon was forced to admit that it's success rates were far too high. (They claimed it was closer to 50%...outside investigators claimed it was closer to 1%.)


But the point of the matter was that the Pentagon wasn't forthcoming in the success rate of the missile system. They had to be forced to admit that their eariler numbers were too high.


Which takes us to this test. The discovery of the GPS system after the test might not affected the test - but then again, it might have. You are correct, we don't know. But why wasn't the existance of the GPS mentioned up front? Furthermore, the attempted squelching of critics (especially expert critics) is not a good sign.


BTW: you claimed that hitting the missile in flight, with GPS was HARD. I didn't claim it was or wasn't, but the truth of the matter is that you DO NOT KNOW. You are assuming again.

New What I read...
Take it with a grain of salt, it was someone else's post on /.:

The test was intended to test the final portion of the flight. The GPS information (which was talked about during the test, very openly) was fed through the missile's radar systems to simulate the first stage tracking (which isn't done, and wasn't being tested).

The final burn for the impact was a fully operational system, and that's what was being tested.

It certainly sounds like a valid test to me, since they were up front about it.
Regards,

-scott anderson
New Scott, it's certainly possible.

This was the first I've heard of the GPS system (same article) but it's certainly possible it was ignored by the media until recently. Furthermore, it's possible, even probable, that GPS wasn't used in any way, shape, or form by the system as a guidence system. Truely, I don't know.


Furthermore, the only source of the military bashing what's-his-name at MIT is in the article. That needs more investigation - a single source just isn't enough.


But my real point on the matter was that this type of stuff happens everywhere. PHB's want demos that show what they're buying and, when push comes to shove, you've got to demo it. There always seems to be a group of people who'll fake the test rather than show they've got nothing but vapor (like what's-his-name buying the plasma screen). The allegation that the test was faked/rigged shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

New No, it shouldn't.
The allegation that the test was faked/rigged shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

But neither is it proof of the vast Bush/Cheney/Supreme Court conspiracy to enrich the War Machine. :)

It shouldn't be dismissed, but right now, there's too much political nonsense going on, hiding any real tech issues.

And the story that came out was of the "AHA! They were hiding something" stage... and I think its the "Aha! the reporter doesn't get it". :)

Addison
New Certainly.

But neither is it proof of the vast Bush/Cheney/Supreme Court conspiracy to enrich the War Machine. :)

Absolutely. At best (worse?) this would be proof of fraud. (Not that anyone is likely to ever be charged with anything.)


It shouldn't be dismissed, but right now, there's too much political nonsense going on, hiding any real tech issues.

Welcome to the kitchen. Real issues are ignored in politics why political 'nonsense' goes on. You expected differently?



And the story that came out was of the "AHA! They were hiding something" stage... and I think its the "Aha! the reporter doesn't get it". :)

Possibly. But then again, I'm not ready to jump to conclusions about the test as we don't know. I'm certainly not going to judge the reporter and claim "he doesn't get it" until those facts are out.


What truly amazes me is that you yourself have jumped onto others for jumping to conclusions without facts. You don't know if the test was rigged or not, but you willing to judge the reporter. You've said that the test was hard, even with GPS, without facts.


Yet if anyone else provides an opinion without being based on facts, you've jumped on them rather hard. You shove down their throats that they do not know.


Amazing....actually. You seem to be doing the same exact thing. I guess your rules just don't apply to you.

New Pot, Kettle, and Black.
What truly amazes me is that you yourself have jumped onto others for jumping to conclusions without facts. You don't know if the test was rigged or not, but you willing to judge the reporter. You've said that the test was hard, even with GPS, without facts.

If you'll note - the jumping exercise here (and I'm sure you won't) was you.

And yes, its hard, GPS or no GPS. I *know* this. We can debate my knowledge level about that, but hitting 2 targets, moving at those speeds, with the variances to be expected, yeah, that's hard.

I'll accept that as a fact. If you want to think its easy, well, go ahead, but your opposition to the ABM program will look silly if you think its easy, and we shouldn't do it. :)

Do the math for yourself if you don't believe me. I won't be insulted. But its hard.


But then again, I'm not ready to jump to conclusions about the test as we don't know.

You already *did*. So did the reporter. And its my supposition that the reporter did exactly that, for much the same reason you did.

I'm certainly not going to judge the reporter and claim "he doesn't get it" until those facts are out

Note that I'm just mentioning that as a possibility. In response to your (implications) that the military isn't honest about its systems.

I guess your rules just don't apply to you.

Right.

Sorry. Forgot, anti-Republican good good good, pro-republican bad.

And me forgot to bash bash bash.

No happen again.

Addison

New Nope. Sorry. Not the same at all.

And yes, its hard, GPS or no GPS. I *know* this. We can debate my knowledge level about that, but hitting 2 targets, moving at those speeds, with the variances to be expected, yeah, that's hard.

You know this. Yet, you have provided no facts to back it up. You haven't proved your knowledge. I suppose I'm just supposed to grovel in your expert knowledge. (Of course, God forbid you accept anyone else's expert knowledge without proof.)





I'll accept that as a fact. If you want to think its easy, well, go ahead, but your opposition to the ABM program will look silly if you think its easy, and we shouldn't do it. :)
Do the math for yourself if you don't believe me. I won't be insulted. But its hard.


Let me get this straight: You're saying that my opposition to the ABM program is silly if hitting a missile with a GPS installed is easy? Do our enemies' missiles come with a GPS? Of course, I've been silly! Thank you addison, I agree. My opposition to the ABM system (where did this come from?) is hereby GONE!


Our enemies will of course install GPS systems in their missiles JUST SO WE CAN DESTROY THEM!


Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was your point, wasn't it?


For the record (again) I haven't claimed that it's easier or harder to nail a target with a GPS installed. (You did.) I STATED quote: [...] you claimed that hitting the missile in flight, with GPS was HARD. I didn't claim it was or wasn't [...] (emphasis added.) Since I haven't claimed anything, I have nothing to prove.


And now, according to you, I'm in opposition of the ABM system. Gee, thanx for asking my opinion.




You already *did*. So did the reporter. And its my supposition that the reporter did exactly that, for much the same reason you did.

Excuse me, but what conclusion(s) have I jumped to? (Please be specific.)




Note that I'm just mentioning that as a possibility. In response to your (implications) that the military isn't honest about its systems.

Amazing: I think it's the "Aha! the reporter doesn't get it" equals "mentioning that as a possibility". Yeah, sure, one of them isn't a judgement call. What was it you said to me, something about "well, sorry, but that's not what you said."?


BTW: My implications that the military may not be honest about it's system are at least backed up with facts. I've documented where the military HASN'T been honest about it's systems in the past. (See, I claim this, so I willing to prove it.)





I guess your rules just don't apply to you.

Right.
Sorry. Forgot, anti-Republican good good good, pro-republican bad.
And me forgot to bash bash bash.

Where did that come from? Who said ANYTHING about Republicans?

New Fine.
New ok now...
why don't you add in what gets spent on all those other programs at the state and local level. The Fed is NOT responsible for nor should it be

....in education (oh GOD Virginia...he hates the CHEELDRUN.....da gubment shouldn't ejukate us....) Education is LOCAL. Federal government money comes with rules that make it counterproductive to the real education of children,.

Housing...same deal. Affordable housing is a LOCAL issue...not federal.

Guess what...on that list...is the single biggest FEDERAL issue...well...its DEFENSE now, isn't it....and gee...it gets the most money.

And included in what is spent of all of thses other things is probably NOT the cost of the organizations which grant the money....but the salary of the soldiers IS included in the defense budget. So is the research into technologies that fund the Science Departments of some pretty good universities....(but Virginia...thats EJUKASHUN....but they count it as defense...go figure)

Um...er...well...

I have no choice!

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Full agreement.
The higher the government (i.e. federal > state > county > city ) management for a given ultimately local service, then the bigger the bureaucracy, less responsiveness and less efficiency. With big government, ultimately a most of the money is spent on "administration", i.e. people that do not provide the service.

The Virginia countryside around Washington, DC is composed of estates owned by federal bureaucrats and their sycophants. Your taxes at work.
Alex

This is my sig. There's another almost like it, but this one is mine.
New Ya got me there, partly. Smartass.
Still n'all - how's come that there *Federal* military budget remains at er cold war levels? Is it about the fear of incoming from N. Korea, Iraq and France?

Is it about: the mythical man-mo ^h^h umm simultaneous Theatre-class War on Two Fronts\ufffd for which we must perpetually rehearse?

(Would a Drug War in Colombia AND one in Peru count as fulfilling the prophecy? For appropriations purposes.) Could the Local US Drug War also be counted - EZ qualifier then - and, a General IS heading it. No?

Could we have a War on Corporate Welfare - with a General in charge?

So what's it all about, Alfie?
New Re: Ya got me there, partly. Smartass.
Still n'all - how's come that there *Federal* military budget remains at er cold war levels?


Reagen Defense Spending = 6.5% of GDP

Cold War Average roughly = 5%

2000 spending = 3.9%


Now while I could not find 2001 spending...since all the serious repos were bitching at shrub about neglecting his campaign promise to increase military spending...I'm guessing as a percent of GDP that we're still significantly lower.
Um...er...well...

I have no choice!

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New So then: a suitable metric for er
The Safety, Comfort and Hegemony of the Murican Peepul is:

Some near-constant %-GNP? And after all the Evul Empires have self-destructed: a 10%? 20%? reduction -- is the best deal our febrile great minds can manage for us ~ 300M folk?

And - it just Can't have anything whatsoever to do with: massively profitable Corporate preferences?

It's about Security pure and simple* ??

(* -minded?)

Now then - what was the question?



Ashton
New I'm not sure what your point is.
It appears to be that the best option is to spend $0 on national defense.

% of GDP is the measure that almost everyone uses. And a 45% reduction from cold war highs IS significant..even if you fail to realize it...or for that matter care.

So...reduce it to 2% of GDP...that way we can pay our soldiers...but we can't give them any weapons...now >that< would be effective.

Maybe we should eliminate the incentive programs designed to gain recruits...Lord knows every teenager is just DYING to wear army greens.

We don't need a military...nor a missile defense...since we should be content to stay within our contiguous 48 and buy American.
Um...er...well...

I have no choice!

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New The need for defense spending will end...
when the nature of man changes.

Don't hold your breath.
Alex

Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not certain about the universe.
-- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
New Cold war 5.0 avge; 2000 3.9 = 20% reduction
You don't think it odd - with the major components of M.A.D. dismantled:

That we believe we need to spend 4/5 of the average cold war amount for 'defense' on er 'defense'? Against whom and what? Need same number of subs hiding in the Bering Sea? B-52s on 24/7 still? I don't think so.

And since the nature of the game of late has been to hit targets by remote control, does this mean that the new techno equipment costs + the new lethal toys: costs 4/5 of the cold war average? A similar number of personnel?

This must be a quite malleable idea of 'security' - if the insane extremes of the M.A.D. years - cost only 25% more than the 2000 budget. I must be missing some Large threat out there.



A.

(Oh, and a bunch of the guys think we're underfunding, too?)
Nope, don't get it.
New Avg vs High vs Trend
It would be nice to make it such a simple argument.


For example...we don't make B-2 bombers anymore...they're too expensive. BUT...for the approprate alternate aircraft to accomplish the same obejectives...over 100 soldiers are put at risk...in the B-2 it is 4. To reduce that number further...and build an automated army...it is extraordinarily expensive...but THAT is what is being done. Running Abrahams tanks by remote control would be better than putting soldiers in harms way...wouldn't it? Even if its a tad expensive?


Also...[link|http://bepatient.net/spend.jpg|Look at this chart] to show the overall trend of defense spending for the US. It is quite markedly a downward trend. Drastically since the early 60s.


So, we have the technology and capability to do things like mechanize the armed forces and protect against ballistic missile threat (they still exist...and in hands that make the Russians a preferred enemy)...but golly its expensive....and to spend on defense, as we all know, NEVER leads to anything beneficial in the private sector (even though all dod funded research must...by rule...have a commercialization plan...see [link|http://lionhearth.com|here] for an example)


And we all know there's [link|http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/08/01/mideast/index.html|peace ] in the [link|http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/08/01/srebrenica.verdict/index.html|world]
Um...er...well...

I have no choice!

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Expand Edited by bepatient Aug. 2, 2001, 10:13:17 AM EDT
Expand Edited by bepatient Aug. 2, 2001, 10:14:53 AM EDT
New Nice chart.
Even if a USNA grad can't spel mandatory ;-)

And yes, the trend for "spending it in advance" is as evident as the downward trend of 'defense discretionary'. I guess one next needs to examine that rising "pre-spent" amount for the Real military overall %-GDP - no?

So then.. it's about keeping soldiers out of harm's way - let the costs rise as they may: OSHA safety standards for the armed forces. Risk-free wars, courtesy of keen new and e$pecially effective remote-robots.

Of course, when the next er 'police action' or mini-war looks to perk up a flailing or just plain boring admin's image: it will become so much Easier -- with all the boys staying at home and using their remotes. No grieving parents to underscore what 'war' might mean. Less incentive to avoid.. Progress, perhaps?

It's such a fertile ground for reading social and political meaning into - I suspect that the actual annual military expense shall remain diffused across a lot of ledgers - next too. No politico would want an actual referendum with full disclosure.

Anyway - nice chart. Can Brilliant Pebbles and 'Nuke from Orbit' be far away? - all unmanned too. Really cheap that way.


A.

New Well...
..it seems taht you are advocating a position that is neither safe nor prudent. One that says, we, as the advanced leader of the "free world" should unilaterally disarm ourselves because it is the only humane thing to do.

Why spend on defense when there is nothing to defend against seems to be your question...even though were involved in one conflict I linked to and are likely to end up involved in the other.

But we don't need a well equipped, well-trained armed force because it may make war more palatable.

Not to the enemy facing those forces.

We are spending less. almost 50% less than the highest point (6.6 to 3.9) We've cut good programs to make these reductions. We face serious readiness problems because we are spending so much less. Yet because you see no "clear and present danger"...you still seem to advocate spending little or nothing.

Methinks we may not see an agreement reached between us on this finer political point.
Um...er...well...

I have no choice!

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New These points are of course, debatable. Simply they aren't
(debated) much - or in a manner which (more than putatively) seeks the input of citizens re

Quo vadis? - since the dissolution of the USSR. The rhetoric remains cold-warish and even the cliches 'hawk / dove' appear to be just resting for a spell.

"More military spending" is deemed by one cliche-side as simply: the unarguably patriotic Thing to do. Undoubtedly the reverse is: let's disarm (I don't recall mentioning that straw dog?).

I submit that, before 'we' can assign some %-GNP or any other manifestly *arbitrary* indicator of OK-patriotic-spending - there needs first to be a public, massively debated and reviewed and then debated some more: "sense of purpose". An overt, explicit replacement for the vestiges of M.A.D.. I know of no such - even "mock-plebiscite".

There's a major qualitative change in our position vis-a-vis the entire world, and we are simply drifting with the hot air of a now deceased "permanent emergency state" -- which most of us alive today, took to be "the normal state for homo-saps".

It wasn't 'normal' however it was our average behavior, then. Now is different! (Unless we keep saying, it isn't.) I submit there is nothing like 'a national consensus' on:

WTF we *ought* to be doing - next, at home or in the world. Our One Party with Two Right Wings and a skeleton 'middle' is demonstrating neither 'direction' nor method. The ABM diversion, I submit - proves how 'tactical' is our group-think: how utterly devoid of anything like a long-term strategy for the US next, military or otherwise.

In this context - I think "%-GNP" is about as much Red-Herring as it is unimaginitive. It is cart-before-horse. You spend what you *must* after FIRST having plan, strategy and some sense of the citizenry - or it's just random waste pork. Again. IMO.

(And out there STILL: are all those thousands of nukes we all duped ourselves into overbuilding, knowing we *never could use a fraction of them!* except in a final M.A.D. unthinkable suicide.)

Want Ad? Terra looking for kindergarten teacher. Apply UN - Geneva or NY, Earth.


A.
New what price victory or defeat?
as a percentage of GNP is one way to look at it. I dont look at it that way.
To get caught in the position we were in during 1940 would be bad. The really bad thing I think is lack of training rounds. It takes a lot of rounds to make a could shooter and simulators arnt the same. Do we have the capability to mount desert storm in under two years? My understanding is that we don t. Our ammo stocks in smart weapons is low and manufacturing more is not an option as the companies have retooled. It aint gonna get any better anytime soon and the people who dont like us or we are in their way know this. Scary shyte comming down the pike and I am afraid it might be my boys in a few years. I wonder if they could take my tired carcass instead. At least I got practice at getting anhilated.
thanx,
bill
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
New Not any more
Is it about: the mythical man-mo ^h^h umm simultaneous Theatre-class War on Two Fronts\ufffd for which we must perpetually rehearse?

The current Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) has told Congress that they are pretty much abandoning that philosophy
Jay O'Connor

"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New Hmmm.. then what chimera are we using to replace it?
New Nothing much
In the last eight to ten years, the military has been trying to say "this is our job, let us do it". However politicians have been using the military for a lot of little things that the military wasn't well set up to do like humanitarian relief, local policing, show of force exercises, etc... stuff the military didn't really want to do that sapped it's operating proficiency. That's why our military is in such a shambles today. Basically, Rumsfield has said that they are going to abandon the two theatre war policy and focus on being better equipped for the smaller mission sets
Jay O'Connor

"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New That sounds relatively sane. But why so expensive still?
Assuming BP's numbers in ballpark: I still read 4/5 of avge cold war GNP% - in 2000.

I fail to understand the nature of this 'threat' which requires expenditures that close to cold war rate.

A.
New Simple, operational deployment costs more....
...the training and preparataion.

Actually deploying troops to Bosnia, etc,...is more expensive than merely preparing to do the same.
Jay O'Connor

"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New LRPD below explains! 'We have a moral imperative.'
New Gotta wory 'bout France, ya know... *snicker*
jb4

(Resistance is not futile...)
New More than you know ;)
I work for them
Um...er...well...

I have no choice!

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
     Shrub is singlehandedly undoing years of foriegn policy work - (inthane-chan) - (67)
         just spent a few hours revewing Potsdam - (boxley)
         Tom Tomorrow feels our pain - (Ashton) - (6)
             sumbitch outa be arrested for spying :) -NT - (boxley)
             On global warming - (drewk) - (4)
                 I'd read that too - (SpiceWare) - (3)
                     I'm looking for a reference - (drewk) - (2)
                         Here's a good quote from the report - (drewk) - (1)
                             There's More - (Steve Lowe)
         I dunno - (SpiceWare) - (12)
             I could understand it if... - (inthane-chan) - (3)
                 Not quite - (Fearless Freep) - (2)
                     In other words... - (jb4) - (1)
                         Of course - (Fearless Freep)
             Exactly why... - (Fearless Freep)
             NMD == waste of money. - (pwhysall) - (6)
                 That and history has shown that defensive arms races - (Simon_Jester)
                 What would you have said in the 30s? 50s? - (addison) - (4)
                     Question... - (Simon_Jester) - (3)
                         Re: Question... - (addison) - (2)
                             The same Patriot missile system used in Desert Storm? - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
                                 The very same. - (addison)
         Interesting points - (Fearless Freep)
         Is that bad? - (addison)
         Re: Shrub is singlehandedly undoing years of foriegn policy - (bepatient) - (43)
             OK.. but if the cold war is over: - (Ashton) - (42)
                 Re: OK.. but if the cold war is over: - (addison) - (20)
                     Priorities. - (Ashton) - (19)
                         Support Faith Based Missle Defense Systems. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (18)
                             Believe that's called, 'karma'___________________:-\ufffd -NT - (Ashton)
                             That's what we have now. - (addison) - (16)
                                 Exactly How Hard Do you think it is... - (mmoffitt) - (15)
                                     Thanks, Mike - wouldn't have found that one. LRPD below: - (Ashton) - (1)
                                         Eerier and eerier. LRPD speaks again: - (Ashton)
                                     Only one question - (wharris2) - (1)
                                         Also.. - (Fearless Freep)
                                     Pretty hard. - (addison) - (10)
                                         I more interesting in why this was mentioned after the test. - (Simon_Jester) - (9)
                                             Re: I more interesting in why this was mentioned after the t - (addison) - (8)
                                                 Actually it *IS* the same thing. - (Simon_Jester) - (7)
                                                     What I read... - (admin) - (6)
                                                         Scott, it's certainly possible. - (Simon_Jester) - (5)
                                                             No, it shouldn't. - (addison) - (4)
                                                                 Certainly. - (Simon_Jester) - (3)
                                                                     Pot, Kettle, and Black. - (addison) - (2)
                                                                         Nope. Sorry. Not the same at all. - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
                                                                             Fine. -NT - (addison)
                 ok now... - (bepatient) - (20)
                     Full agreement. - (a6l6e6x)
                     Ya got me there, partly. Smartass. - (Ashton) - (18)
                         Re: Ya got me there, partly. Smartass. - (bepatient) - (9)
                             So then: a suitable metric for er - (Ashton) - (8)
                                 I'm not sure what your point is. - (bepatient) - (7)
                                     The need for defense spending will end... - (a6l6e6x)
                                     Cold war 5.0 avge; 2000 3.9 = 20% reduction - (Ashton) - (5)
                                         Avg vs High vs Trend - (bepatient) - (4)
                                             Nice chart. - (Ashton) - (3)
                                                 Well... - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                     These points are of course, debatable. Simply they aren't - (Ashton)
                                                 what price victory or defeat? - (boxley)
                         Not any more - (Fearless Freep) - (5)
                             Hmmm.. then what chimera are we using to replace it? -NT - (Ashton) - (4)
                                 Nothing much - (Fearless Freep) - (3)
                                     That sounds relatively sane. But why so expensive still? - (Ashton) - (2)
                                         Simple, operational deployment costs more.... - (Fearless Freep) - (1)
                                             LRPD below explains! 'We have a moral imperative.' -NT - (Ashton)
                         Gotta wory 'bout France, ya know... *snicker* -NT - (jb4) - (1)
                             More than you know ;) - (bepatient)

We get more play than a 6-disc changer in a bitchin' Camaro.
339 ms