On Jul 22, 1:07 am, Gunner Asch
NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:22:41 -0700 (PDT), Cormagh
yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>>On Jul 20, 3:54 am, Gunner Asch
NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:45:12 -0700 (PDT), Cormagh
yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:>
>>>>"By mid-2004 the Natanz centrifuge facility was
>>>>hardened with a roof of several meters of reinforced concrete and
>>>>buried under a layer of earth some 75 feet deep."
>
>
>
>>> he Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) bomb is designed to penetrate hardened
>>> targets before exploding, capable of penetrating 100 feet of earth or
>>> 20 feet of concrete. The GBU-28 was initially developed in 1991 for
>>> penetrating hardened Iraqi command centers located deep underground.
>>> This "bunker buster" was required for special targets during the
>>> Desert Storm conflict and was designed, fabricated and loaded in
>>> record time. The GBU-28 is a laser-guided conventional munition that
>>> uses a modified Army artillery tube as the bomb body. They are fitted
>>> with GBU-27 LGB kits, 14.5 inches in diameter and almost 19 feet long.
>>> The operator illuminates a target with a laser designator and then the
>>> munition guides to a spot of laser energy reflected from the target.
>
>
>
>>> he new EGBU-28 (the “E” being for enhanced) replaces the GBU-37. This
>>> latest version of the “bunker buster” uses the Global Positioning
>>> System for guidance so that it can be dropped with accuracy at higher
>>> altitudes in foul weather. The amount of rock and concrete that the
>>> EGBU-28 can penetrate is classified, but Major Dick Wright, who was
>>> the weapon’s test manager in 1991, said that the older version “went
>>> through 20 feet of concrete like butter” and when dropped onto hard
>>> ground, penetrated down to 100 feet.
>
>>>>What is most wrong about your "sit back and watch" logic is that Iran
>>>>has promised to retaliate against attacks. This means that while we
>>>>may be somewhat safe from their threats because of our geography,
>>>>those friends of ours who are not will not be so happy about your
>>>>happy-go-lucky aggression.
>
>>> What are they gonna do..send more IEDs to Iraq?
>
>>That would be awful. I'm not so sure they sent any IED's, since our
>>military won't produce any convincing evidence that they have, and
>>Iran hasn't admitted it.
>
> Actually..they have, and paraded the Iranian "advisors" that have been
> captured.
No, they didn't, not to the satisfaction of any major newspapers. They
couldn't say why they were convinced the IED's came from Iran, other
than that some Iranians were in Iraq. The paraded "advisors" were
diplomats, and have probably been returned by now, or should have. No
information on the "mission" of these men has ever been presented to
the public. The stories of US attrocities against innocent civilians
in Iraq are legion now and yet some rightards don't even understand
why they want us out now as quickly as possible.
>>My point is that there is no proof that our
>>weapons, such as the EGBU-28 would even be 100%% effective, then there
>>comes the whole issue of whether a "surgical strike" is really worth a
>>war. "In a war, the other side gets a vote."
>
> Not if they are dead.
If you mean "the leadership", you have a point, yet we can't count on
their defences not being adequate and effective, so we don't know
this. If you mean the people, we don't have enough armaments to wipe
out the whole country. No other civilized country would sit by and
allow us to do this, even if we wanted to. Remember what happened to
Israel in Lebanon. Their attention to protecting civilians was so
careless that the Europeans and probably most Americans too turned
against the invasion. Essentially they had to stop the invasion to
protect their political capital in Europe.
> "[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so would result in even less votes than they currently receive.
There's plenty of literature on liberal ideas, and there's also the
history of liberalism in America, which most liberals would stand by.
> Their
> methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining power, at which point they will do
> whatever they damn well please.
Actually Liberals have been particularly good at keeping promises,
especially in comparison to neo-conservatives like GW Bush.
> The problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group, they themselves are no longer > sure of their goals.
Our goals are humanitarian and liberal, according with the US
Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and extending to the
betterment of society in the spirit of the founding fathers. This has
never been a secret, or obfuscated.
> They are a collection of wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some want a
> Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second Amendment. Some want same sex/different
> species marriage, others want voting rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and
> complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture that walks in lockstep and speaks > only with intonations of political correctness." - Ron Marr
Liberals are the most inclusive of political types. Because they are
humanist, they believe in the benefits of citizenship should extend to
all, regardless of affiliations and peculiarities. Of course liberals
include almost everyone who is not conservative/anti-social progress,
so some of these people even believe in protecting rights of other
species, and there are some sound philosophical arguments to support
that, but all Liberals do not have to agree with every liberal idea,
that would be un-liberal. Finally, Liberals do not want any kind of
lockstep anything - they are completely opposed to coercion and
fascism, etc. Political Correctness has become a standard in our
society for observing the rights of and not offending the feelings of
others who are of differing ethnic backgrounds. It is not a law, it is
just how most people communicate nowadays. In my experience the most
oppressive Political Correctness comes from Conservatives, who want ot
Politically Correct everything, except race, such as the reputation of
the President of the United States, but only if he is happens to be a
Republican!
> I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the
> competing factions of Islamic
> fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join
> forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core, and only join forces to attack George > Bush and conservatives.
Granted that many types of people have a hard time understanding
everyone in America today. I don't think this applies only to
Liberals. Certainly the Conservatives don't understand most liberals
ether. Nor do Regligious Conservatives understand Moderate
Conservatives, nor do Libertarians understand Neoconservatives, etc.
It's a complicated political landscape, but Liberals, while more
diverse because they believe in the embodiment of Freedom, are not the
peer-haters that Marr imagined.
Now believe it or not, Liberals are actually more patriotic than
Conservatives, because they really Believe in the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution, not just the hunt 'n peck version
of it that the Conservatives do. They are less inclined to Treasonous
concepts, such as Israel is more important than the US. Who supports
Israel? Well, the Liberals, of course - most Jews are Liberals (even
if they voted for a Republican President, they will still tell you
they are Liberals.). What is Israel? Well, it is a Liberal country;
Conservative parties have a hard time raising a majority there.
(Conservatives instead have been known to resort to mass killing and
assassination there, not that they would all do that.)
Cormagh
