chuckbrown

An integrated command and control structure probably has something to do with it.

Agree completely. We'll just agree to disagree on what should be fought and what should be punted. Personally, I'd rather have the battle fought away from our shores because we can't count on the big puddles anymore to protect us.

We won the Cold War because we were fighting a rational enemy who understood the implications of Mutual Assured Destruction. We are now fighting an enemy that doesn't care about his/her own destruction so long as they acheive their objective of destroying us. Our enemy has no fear of the consequences of their actions, even if those consequences mean their own death. We cannot fight this battle "by not fighting it." The WTC is proof of that. You're right this battle may end the world, but we can either fight to preserve our world or do nothing as it's destroyed.

Go for the tree & pray. Honestly, I know a guy who had a double mal and hit the only tree in a field. He's now a ripe 71 years old and still jumps 300 times a year.

and as always it was received with world wide condemnation... O Given that the reactor type was not conducive to weapons development, that may have been appropriate. But it was definitely a form of diplomacy that make Reagan's heart go warm. At the time Israel was widely condemned for the bombing of this reactor, but, like many things, history has put a different view on this incident. It's now pretty much accepted that Israel did the world a great service by putting this reactor out of commission and effectively destroying Hussein's nuclear weapons program.

Not exactly responsive to your post, but Maytown, PA has several jumpers from MD come up on a regular basis. No turbines. Just 2 C182s and wide open areas and a friendly atmosphere. There are some very good freeflyers and relative workers to jump with, and if you're into CRW we have some pretty decent dawgs, too. It's a little more low key than X-Keys (pardon the pun), but we try to have fun.

Kallend, YOU were the one who cited DOE as the source for your assertion that DOE "misplace tons of weapons grade plutonium." I was the one who checked with DOE to determine whether your assertion was accurate. To be charitable and in keeping with forum etiquette, you were pretty fast & loose with DOE's statements, which, by the way, did not support your statement regarding tons missing plutonium. Now you are attempting to discredit the very source you were relying on to support your statements. I'm beginning to see a pattern here. BSBD. Chuck.

That lawyer wuz lying. Just kidding. This lawyer is going to the 8th ring of hell. Feel better now.

Caviar in an omlette rocks! Of course I've only had the cheapo stuff, but it's still pretty good.

I found it using Google. So can you. It's not exactly a secret. They blame it on inventory control. This in the country and the organization with the most sophisticated inventory control that exists anywhere. I found it using Google, and it doesn't support your assertion. They didn't "blame it on inventory control." DOE said it was based on differing methods of calculating actual production. So they have no idea of what the inventory is within a margin of error of several tons.. QED. That seems to be a well supported conclusion. Thanks.

The last count was 35 CReW Dawgs coming to town. We need one more for a 36 way diamond. Hopefully, a new Mississippi CReW record will be set, but, in any event, loads of fun will be had. Laissez bontemps roulez!

I found it using Google. So can you. It's not exactly a secret. They blame it on inventory control. This in the country and the organization with the most sophisticated inventory control that exists anywhere. I found it using Google, and it doesn't support your assertion. They didn't "blame it on inventory control." DOE said it was based on differing methods of calculating actual production.

I would be interested in a specific citation supporting this conclusion. DOE acknowledges that 2 GRAMS of weapons grade plutonium is missing from Los Alamos Lab, but DOE doesn't acknowledge "misplacing tons" of WGP. DOE has stated that different methods of calculating WGP production have resulted in production figures which differ by several tons. This does not mean that several tons of WGP are missing. It means that DOE miscalculated how much WGP was actually produced. DOE specifically denies that "tons" of WGP are missing. http://www.osti.gov/html/osti/opennet/document/press/pc11.html Edited cuz I'm a tard. It makes the point either way. Either they lost it despite the most stringent security precautions, or they lost track of it despite the most sophistocated inventory control. I find your reasoning suspect to say the least. Miscalculations with regard to production totals does not mean anything was lost. It means there was an error with respect to how much was produced in the first place. I'm still curious as to why you refuse to provide your source to support your conclusion that tons of WGP was "misplaced."

I would be interested in a specific citation supporting this conclusion. DOE acknowledges that 2 GRAMS of weapons grade plutonium is missing from Los Alamos Lab, but DOE doesn't acknowledge "misplacing tons" of WGP. DOE has stated that different methods of calculating WGP production have resulted in production figures which differ by several tons. This does not mean that several tons of WGP are missing. It means that DOE miscalculated how much WGP was actually produced. DOE specifically denies that "tons" of WGP are missing. http://www.osti.gov/html/osti/opennet/document/press/pc11.html Edited cuz I'm a tard.

I don't remember Dante writing about SUVs or sports cars. Since I own an SUV I guess that's why I am so going to Hell.

Or to not reach for the risers until you are standing. I've chopped a little off the tips o' my fingers that way too. This just happened to a buddy this weekend. Blood all over his white jumpsuit.

DITTO. Major bucks, reasonable security and company.

Personally I think it was a big mistake to arbitrarily set a date by which "sovereignty" was to be returned to the Iraqi people without regard to the actual political and military situation on the ground. We started the thing, now we have to see it through to a successful conclusion. In case you're wondering where I came up with this snippet, check out the 5/13 edition of the WSJ. No matter whether you agree with their editorial positions, their reporting is the best in the world.

Interesting scenario. Unfortunately, this will never happen. While there is scheduled to be a hand over of power to the provisional government, the new Iraqi government will not control its armed forces, nor will it be able to make any laws or make major decisions without US approval. Futhermore, all current commissions which have supplanted the prior government ministries will continue in power, with their hand picked "advisors." The Coalition Provisional Authority has already envisioned your scenario and planned accordingly. That's why they get the big bucks.

Touche Kallend. Touche.

Finally, some critique and discussion. Not quite the "Quote, Reply, Quote, Reply" I'm used to but it's a start ...

I thought it was a very thoughtful article. I'm surprised it's generated no negative comments so far from the usual suspects. As for the Seattle crew, they're just mad they missed the 60s.

Did Vietnam attack us or threaten us? I would argue no, but I didn't include it out of intellectual integrity. We didn't really invade. We just bombed the shit out them. Same goes for Cambodia and Loas. I was only including instances where we sought to overthrow a sovereign government, which I think was Kallend's attempted point (although I won't speak for him). Also we were in S. Vietnam at the request of the RVN government. I guess you could also include Nicaragua where we used SF to train & arm the Contras (who overthrew the Sandanista government). And the beat goes on ....

Quote Its unprecedented for the US to invade a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked or threatened it. Quote I can think of at least 2 such instances: Panama (1989) - US invaded Panama to depose Manuel Noriega. Panama neither attacked or threatened US. Grenada (1983) - US invaded Grenada to remove Marxist government. Grenada neither attacked or threatened US. I'm sure there are others, but these 2 immediately leapt to mind.

Sorry to post such a long article, but this appeared in today's WSJ, and I thought it would be good to share with my DZ.com bretheren. It's at Opinionjournal.com (a free site). In short, a Nobel Peace laureate makes the case for the US invasion of Iraq. __________________________________________________ Sometimes, a War Saves People We must be willing to bring the fight to those who would do evil. BY JOSE RAMOS-HORTA Thursday, May 13, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT The new Socialist government in Spain has caved in to the terrorist threats and withdrawn its troops from Iraq. So have Honduras and the Dominican Republic. They are unlikely to be the last. With the security situation expected to worsen before it improves, we have to accept that a few more countries--which do not appreciate how much the world has at stake in building a free Iraq--will also cut and run. No matter how the retreating governments try to spin it, every time a country pulls out of Iraq it is al Qaeda and other extremists who win. They draw the conclusion that the coalition of the willing is weak and that the more terrorist outrages, the more countries will withdraw. As a Nobel Peace laureate, I, like most people, agonize over the use of force. But when it comes to rescuing an innocent people from tyranny or genocide, I've never questioned the justification for resorting to force. That's why I supported Vietnam's 1978 invasion of Cambodia, which ended Pol Pot's regime, and Tanzania's invasion of Uganda in 1979, to oust Idi Amin. In both cases, those countries acted without U.N. or international approval--and in both cases they were right to do so. Perhaps the French have forgotten how they, too, toppled one of the worst human-rights violators without U.N. approval. I applauded in the early '80s when French paratroopers landed in the dilapidated capital of the then Central African Empire and deposed "Emperor" Jean Bedel Bokassa, renowned for cannibalism. Almost two decades later, I applauded again as NATO intervened--without a U.N. mandate--to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and liberate an oppressed European Muslim community from Serbian tyranny. And I rejoiced once more in 2001 after the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban liberated Afghanistan from one of the world's most barbaric regimes. So why do some think Iraq should be any different? Only a year after his overthrow, they seem to have forgotten how hundreds of thousands perished during Saddam Hussein's tyranny, under a regime whose hallmark was terror, summary execution, torture and rape. Forgotten too is how the Kurds and Iraq's neighbors lived each day in fear, so long as Saddam remained in power. Those who oppose the use of force at any cost may question why overthrowing Saddam was such a priority. Why not instead tackle Robert Mugabe, the junta in Myanmar, or Syria? But while Mugabe is a ruthless despot, he is hardly in the same league as Saddam--a tyrant who used chemical weapons on his own people, unleashed two catastrophic wars against his Muslim neighbors, and defied the U.N. Saddam's overthrow offers a chance to build a new Iraq that is peaceful, tolerant and prosperous. That's why the stakes are so high, and why extremists from across the Muslim world are fighting to prevent it. They know that a free Iraq would fatally undermine their goal of purging all Western influence from the Muslim world, overthrowing the secular regimes in the region, and imposing Stone Age rule. They know that forcing Western countries to withdraw from Iraq would be a major step toward that goal, imperiling the existence of moderate regimes--from the Middle East to the Magreb and Southeast Asia. If those regimes were to fall, hundreds of thousands of Muslims who today denounce the "evils" of Western imperialism would flock to Europe, the U.S., Canada and Australia, seeking refuge. As in Iran, Muslims might have to experience the reality of rule by ayatollahs before they realize how foolish they were not to oppose these religious zealots more vigorously. Fortunately that remains a remote scenario. If we look beyond the TV coverage, there is hope that Washington's vision of transforming Iraq might still be realized. Credible opinion polls show that a large majority of Iraqis feel better off than a year ago. There is real freedom of the press with newspapers and radio stations mushrooming in the new Iraq. There is unhindered Internet access. NGOs covering everything from human rights to women's advocacy have emerged. In short, Iraq is experiencing real freedom for the first time in its history. And that is exactly what the religious fanatics fear. Iraq's Shiite majority has acted with restraint in the face of provocation by extremist elements in the Sunni minority, Saddam loyalists and al Qaeda and other foreign mercenaries. The coalition authorities would be wise to cultivate responsible Shiite clerics more closely and ensure that their legitimate concerns are met. While a Shiite-dominated regime might not meet America's goal of a Western-style democracy, it is still far preferable to risking the return of Saddam's thugs. The U.S. must reiterate that building democracy will not marginalize Islam. Democracy and Islam coexist in Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh, while Israel offers an example of a state built on a single religion. That could be the case in Iraq, too, as long as it is led by wise clerics who are able to deliver freedom and good governance. The most probable contender to fill this role is Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has emerged as the national leader the country needs to keep it together. He may not be a democrat in the Western mold, but the U.S. needs to cultivate him, and provide whatever support is required to ensure that he emerges as ruler of the new Iraq. The U.S. also needs to repair the damage done by the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. While it's important to remember that those involved only represent a tiny fraction of U.S. servicemen in Iraq, the fact remains that the abuse was allowed to continue for many months after organizations such as the normally secretive Red Cross sounded alarm bells. Only thorough investigation, including action against those responsible, can restore U.S. standing in Iraq. Now is the time for Washington to show leadership by ensuring that the U.N. plays the central role in building a new Iraq. As an East Timorese, I am well aware of the international body's limits, having seen first hand its impotence in the face of Indonesia's invasion of my country in 1975. The U.N. is the sum of our qualities and weaknesses, our selfish national interests and personal vanities. For all its shortcomings, it is the only international organization we all feel part of; it should be cherished rather than further weakened. While the U.S. will continue to play a critical role in ensuring security in Iraq, a U.N.-led peacekeeping force would enable many Arab and Muslim nations to join in and help isolate the extremists. In almost 30 years of political life, I have supported the use of force on several occasions and sometimes wonder whether I am a worthy recipient of the Nobel Peace prize. Certainly I am not in the same category as Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu or Nelson Mandela. But Mr. Mandela, too, recognized the need to resort to violence in the struggle against white oppression. The consequences of doing nothing in the face of evil were demonstrated when the world did not stop the Rwandan genocide that killed almost a million people in 1994. Where were the peace protesters then? They were just as silent as they are today in the face of the barbaric behavior of religious fanatics. Some may accuse me of being more of a warmonger than a Nobel laureate, but I stand ready to face my critics. It is always easier to say no to war, even at the price of appeasement. But being politically correct means leaving the innocent to suffer the world over, from Phnom Penh to Baghdad. And that is what those who would cut and run from Iraq risk doing. Mr. Ramos-Horta, the Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1996, is East Timor's senior minister for foreign affairs and cooperation. _________________________________________________ You may now critique and discuss this piece.