Y2K wagging the dog?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Has anyone considered that Clinton and the military may have been backed into a corner on the timing of this strike by the 12-31 rollover date of forward looking unremediated military systems? There is no way they would admit this but it sure would explain a lot.
-- Clem (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 17, 1998
I have thought the exact same thing.
In fact, posted it at the beginning of November, that the US will try to make use of their sophisticated electronic weapons before 1999, and certainly during 1999. All that money to build the systems -- they can't bear letting it 'go to waste;' instead gotta waste someplace ...
-- Leska (email@example.com), December 17, 1998.
BTW, the latest is ...
We're waging massive bombing right now, being carried live on NBC.
Impeachment 'debate' will resume at 10/a Friday morning, with the vote by Saturday afternoon. NBC announces that, for certain, President Clinton *will be* impeached, more than enough votes now for that.
-- Leska (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 17, 1998.
I sat stunned watching the coverage on CNN yesterday afternoon, thinking Y2K, Y2K, Y2K...Listened to the analysts saying how there was little risk of retaliation from Iraq because since the embargos and sanctions, Iraq has limited ability to strike back. I thought: Then WHAT are we doing over there doing the "collateral damage dance?"
I will never understand human beings even if I live be 100 years old. Governments the world over will deserve their Y2K fate in my never humble opinion. Tis the congressmen, senators and presidential types that should be over there engaged in warfare. Then we'd see how quickly they think of using their airborn phalluses!
-- Donna Barthuley (email@example.com), December 17, 1998.
I agree with you, Donna, I think that the President and Congress should be the First on the front lines. Thre would be fewer wars if the leaders did the leading instead of sitting back at home.
I wonder what the reprecussions will be for all these congressmen when Y2K reality sets in and the American people realize that instead of concentrating on the problem of the century that is going to effect all of our lives, these guys spent their time creating the American Soap Opera. Why do they not wake up?
-- Linda A. (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 17, 1998.
Careful what we wish for. When the leaders did the leading, we still had Napoleon, Alexander the Great, the Crusades, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, etc.
-- Maria (email@example.com), December 17, 1998.
FWIW, heard today on the radio that we used about 280 Tomahawk cruise missles yesterday, and that is about as much as the total used in the entire 1991 "Gulf War'. Hmmm.
-- Rob Michaels (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 17, 1998.
1) Rob remember, in the gulf war in '91, we used fewer cruises and more plane on target raids with "smart" munitions.
2)>I sat stunned watching the coverage on CNN yesterday afternoon, >thinking Y2K, Y2K, Y2K...Listened to the analysts saying how there >was little risk of retaliation from Iraq because since the embargos >and sanctions, Iraq has limited ability to strike back. I thought: >Then WHAT are we doing over there doing the "collateral damage >dance?"
I'm surprised at y'all! Y'all oughta be able to read happy face spin anywhere by now! This is especially pollyanna-ish because S. Hussein does NOT have to Personally or through Iraq strike back. All he has to do is point Bin Laden and teh boys at us and sit back, absorb a few more cruises and watch us come apart from the terrorist activities.
-- Chuck a night driver (email@example.com), December 18, 1998.
Okay, I'd like to take the scepticism to the next level. Has anyone wondered how this bumpkin got into the White House? About the timing of the various things he has personally fomented? They did away with silver coin when JFK was assasinated, what are they doing now? While the nation leers in voyeuristic fascination at a semen stained dress(and presidency) what kind of sleight of hand is going on? Perhaps nothing more than diverting the press away from y2k...
-- daniel (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 18, 1998.
Ah,..don't be fooled by the "bumpkin pose"...and we at my house have discussed that question...The fix was in...Who's hinting at puppetmasters here? Power elite? Bilderbergers? The Rothchilds? What was the web site that spelled out how many of the US presidents are in some way blood related?
"Oh...my 2 percent is swimming!" I can name that movie in one quote.
-- Donna Barthuley (email@example.com), December 18, 1998.
Just took a quick break from watching the unbelievable show in Washington and Iraq. Amazing. Just amazing.
We ALL know Y2K has to be somewhere, behind someone's motivations, but it sure is hidden. Does anyone care about the people of this country?
I all can "anticipate" is that upcoming January events may refocus some people, not all, on what their elected jobs are about. I'm extremely thankful that the internet is alive and well, at least for now.
-- Diane J. Squire (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 18, 1998.
Very strongly disagree.
Y2K is not a factor in any part of this particular Iraqi-wagging episode.
GPS rollover, Y2K, and support are irrelevent *at this time* to the folks in the White House playing with their expensive toys to push public opinion.
Why cruise missiles? Now, rather than last time? Couple of reasons - none are particularly related to Y2K though.
First - it keeps our guys out of the pilot seat over Bagdad - even one US casuality would destroy the propaganda effort being generated.
Second - there are more missiles available _though at hundreds of times the cost of "smart" bombs carried by aircraft, and at thousands of times the costs of "dumb" bombs carried by aircraft. Each cruise missile from a ship delivers 1000 lbs of explosive at a cost of about a 1,000,000.00 dollars. It can do that once, then you must buy a new one, and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars flying it out the ships to launch and load its replacement. (He is spending your tax money to blow up water mains in Bagdad and Basra......) Each B-52 launched cruise missile delivers 2000 lbs of explosive at a cost of 2,000,000.00 per missile. Again - you also have to replace the cruise missile - it is obviously a one-way trip.
A single aircraft from a base in Saudia can drop 10-20 1000 bombs once very hour - up to 15 missions per day flown in the last war. Each iron bomb is expensive - perhaps 20,000.00 - 10,000.00 - but the plane can reload and rearm many times. Bottom line - if Clinton keeps firing cruise missiles - Hussein will win the war *unless* one of the cruise missiles actually hits him.
We spent 260 million dollars in missiles in one night - and our junior troops are on food stamps because their salaries are below the poverty line. We can't afford to keep fighting this way, but he can. The North Vietnamese went through 1000 x worse bombings for hundreds of days - and did not quit, nor did they "revolt" against their Communist leaders. granted, the Communist leaders had all the weapons, but ....
Third reason - we have no real support in the region - and so have no airfields to work from to form a major strike. We can only fly from aircraft carriers and Diego Garcia (1500 miles away ?). You can't carry out a long term engagement from that distance. It actually costs more in fuel to fly tankers from that far away than you can carry bombs.
Nope. Its pure politics - trading US dollars and Iraqi lives and buildings for CNN TV broadcast time. Oh - and to let the liberal Democrats who voted against funding our troops in '92 to stand up now and claim they are worried about morale now if impeachment continues.
Best solution for low morale is impeachment.
-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (email@example.com), December 18, 1998.
Right on Robert. I'm one of the few people you'll ever "meet" who reads both ends of the spectrum, from Z Magazine to Media Bypass. What's interesting is the degree to which (supposed) "far right" and "far left" agree on something like the basic points Robert has elequently laid out. For example, Timothy McVeigh, right-wing "monster" though he is, laid out a very rational statement of this sort in his first letter from prison that would be totally acceptable, in its intellectual and historical content, to Noam Chomsky.
-- Runway Cat (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 18, 1998.
****and our junior troops are on food stamps because their salaries are below the poverty line. We can't afford to keep fighting this way, but he can.****
My nephew is in the army now...stationed in Kentucky....he could not maintain a household on his own..had to close up and return to base housing...At my house (called "Anarchy Bootcamp")we urged him NOT to join up....his back was against the wall in the private sector....and it it not any better in the military unless you are a true grunt.
-- Donna Barthuley (email@example.com), December 18, 1998.
then...enter Scott Ritter, former Chief weapons inspector for UNSCOM. A whistle blower of the 1st magnitude. This guy is claiming some serious wag the dog sh*t, a host of serious allegations. Here is a link to one of several interviews he has given.
In addition, on the Rush Limbaugh program Thursday, a portion of an interview was played from the "Today" show. Ritter stated that it was not only a wag the dog scenario played out with 2 major motives in mind (start of ramadan and the impeachment) and was orchestrated at least 3 weeks in advance, he stated that both sides knew what was going on, that you will not hear of any high level casualties in Iraq because they knew well in advance where the bombings would take place (in empty buildings surrounded only by innocent citizens who would be the casualties).
"On April 6th, the President of the United States submitted a report to Congress in which he clearly states that a diplomatic solution had been tried. We have a memorandum of understanding, and the marker's on the table now. Iraq must be held accountable for the agreement that they have signed with the Secretary-General and which was endorsed by the Security Council in its Resolution 1154. If Iraq didn't, there would be the severest consequences. You had this statement on the one hand, but on the other hand, this administration's saying, wait a minute, we can't go forward with aggressive inspections because they will lead to a confrontation with Iraq, but let's understand the confrontation is because Iraq will not comply with the law passed by the Security Council. So we weren't allowed to do our job out of fear of a confrontation in which the United States would not be able to muster the required support of the Security Council to respond effectively or to respond in a manner which they had said they would respond in Resolution 1154."
Sounds like a whole lot of double speak crappola from the US. So, what happened between then and now with the Security Council? Probably nothing. However, now was a very good time to start a conflict, don't you think?
Does anyone remember when the press and the nightly news broadcasted that the US had requested UNSCOM to back off? This was about 4-6 weeks ago. It is a bit hazy in my memory time wise, but it definitely occurred...so, Yourdonites...what is your opinion on this, as if you have to be prompted to do so (yuk, yuk).
-- Goldi (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 18, 1998.
It was reported one night only, then promptly hidden from view public view.
-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (email@example.com), December 21, 1998.
I think military action against Iraq was inevitable since the time this article was in the news on October 31st:
-- Kevin (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 22, 1998.