They are Russian (Soviet?) in design, being that they were 122 mm rocket warheads. Actual manufacture? Who knows. Simple enough for local manufacture, I would guess.
Doesn’t Iraq’s little cease-fire agreement or some UN resolution or other prevent them from having the means of WMD delivery, as well as the WMD themselves?
Warheads are not a means of delivery, they are only the payload (when loaded). Missles are a means of delivery.
122mm rockets are in the Iraqi inventory; They are an exceedingly common item in the artillery units of ‘Russian Style’ armies. Replace the HE warhead with one of these, and Voila! A complete system.
I just saw this. I figure that I’ll throw you lefties a bone. Be advised, any beverage in your mouth when you watch this will most likely end up on the keyboard/screen. Enjoy!
I usually don’t use much web jargon, but there is just no other way to express how I feel right now…
ROTFLMAO 
To oversimplify:
Japan was a martial culture. They Who Kicked Butt basically ruled. The Emperor, while technically God, was, in many ways, a figurehead.
The prewar Japanese were kind of pissed at us for several reasons, among them being various forms of racism, some economic reasons (the oil embargo already mentioned), but mostly because they were looking to become a colonial power in the East… and the white folks had already beat them to most of the good countries.
This led to a situation in Japan where some were in favor of colonizing the places that England, France, and the U.S. had not yet really got a foothold… and another faction, in favor of marching in regardless of who was already there, kicking butt, and daring the arrogant white people to do anything about it.
Guess who won?
This led to the matter of what the arrogant white people MIGHT do about it. England had its hands full. France had its hands tied. This left the U.S… who had most of its oceangoing might all sitting in one location: Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.
Guess what had to be done?
As to George W. Bush: This man is not interested in what Americans want. He is not particularly interested in the well being of the common man, except insofar as directly pissing in the common man’s face might damage the Republican voter turnout next election.
If he wants to invade Iraq, he is going to invade Iraq. The presence of warheads is irrelevant. The wishes of the American people are irrelevant. The wishes of the Arab peoples are irrelevant.
No one was going to make his daddy eat broccoli, and no one is going to stop him from doing as he likes.
Perhaps I am wrong, though. Let’s wait and see…
A “Middle Easterner” is someone who hails from Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Yemen, Oman, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, or Qatar, and by some definitions, Turkey, Egypt, Sudan, Afghanistan, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya as well. They represent about 5% of all “Earthlings.” They don’t all have grievances, but a lot do.
First, Al Qaeda doesn’t speak for the entire Middle East. Al Qaeda is an extremist group, they are the most organized, the most well funded, and hence the most capable of attacking the US, but there are hundreds of individual organizations that hold the US and other neo-colonial nations responsible for making their region of the world into the war torn, impoverished, generally not so nice place it is. A tiny elite of thug dictators, and repressive false monarchs and their cohorts drown in Western riches while the masses starve. Is it any wonder they’re rebelling?
America can’t be blamed for every pie in the world that goes to shit, just the ones it had its fingers in, like Iran where a democratically elected ruler was ousted with the help of the CIA and replaced with our puppet tyrant the Shah. To my knowledge there is no more definitive documentation of the many self-interested U.S. interventions around the world gone bad than William Blum’s “Killing Hope.” I have to say even the hardcore hawks should consider reading this book. Virtually every single paragraph is referenced, mostly from NYTimes, LATimes, WashPost, and official documents. Although I’ll warn you there is a Guardian article used here and there.
So Japan was pissed that we were interfering with their plans for imperial conquest? How is that a valid grievance?
This appears paradoxical. Defying the wishes and well-being of the comman man seems guaranteed to damage Republican voter turnout.
IMHO the key is timing and decision-making. Asked whether we should go to war with Iraq, quite a few citizens would say NO. However, I think a large majority do not want to make this decision. They want our elected leaders to decide, based on their best information and judgment. We do live in a representative democrocy, rather than a direct democracy.
Bush will face an election in Nov., 2004. At that time, voters will judge him on how well his chosen action actually turned out. It won’t matter how much popular support his choice had in 2002. So, his best course, both politically and morally, is to choose the action that will be most effective, regardless of its current ppopularity.
If we easily win a war with Iraq (with or without UN support), and if it is then shown that Iraq had lots of WMDs, and that they were working on nukes, then then Bush’s policy will be a success, both morally and politically.
And what if all that happens and NYC is attacked again, or DC or LA, or all of them? Will American’s still trust Bush to protect them?
If the Dems are smart (and that remains to be seen) they should slowly start publicizing Bush’s potential major misstep in substituting Saddam for OBL. If Bush pulls off his foreign policy without a hitch that plan could backfire for them, but maybe some balls is just what the Dems need right now. Just thinking out loud.
A new Gallup Poll released today shows his approval at 61%
Bush Posts Eighth-Best Yearly Average
There’s no accounting for taste.
Sorry about that - I think the link expired or something.
Does this work? It doesn’t have the comparison to Reagan, Carter and Clinton, unfortunately. I believe I saw it on either AP, or UPI, since I read it in my local paper.
I found it cut and pasted on the ACLU Online Forum, here. Please let me know if you need a better cite.
When did we ever have one of those? 
Regards,
Shodan
Wang-Ka, thank you so much for telling us that information about WWII. We were obviously so ill-informed without it.
Japan was a martial culture? Who knew? Obviously not us!
The prewar Japanese were kind of pissed at us? Nope, I had no idea!
“England had its hands full. France had its hands tied. This left the U.S… who had most of its oceangoing might all sitting in one location: Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.” Wow, this is exciting! I never heard this before. Did this have anything to do with that Ben Affleck movie?
You sure can hope so.
Of course, I tend to hope for the result that leads to less people dying, and am not so concerned about the politics of it. But that’s me.
But I thought you liked Bush?
cainxinth:
Strong and decisive… yep I would agree.
Willing to make hard decisions… ditto
Vision for the country’s future… also true
[/quote]
Come now, he has a vision.
Its a magical place where the suffering of giant corporations and their millionaire CEO’s are finally alleviated. Where, that pesky Bill of Rights is secondary to the false image of security we all want and need. Where 14-year-old mothers aren’t told about the evil condom in sex ed. Where poor people and minorities learn the value of hard work and a stern moral code in the school of hard knocks. Where those ungrateful Arabs realize that our need for SUV’s outweighs their need for basic human rights and democratic governments. Where felons no longer need to worry about background checks when they need an AK-47 to go hunting on short notice. Where the black arts aren’t meddled with and stem cells are left as one of God’s intended mysteries. Where the military finally gets some decent funding and fat is trimmed from those bureaucratic nightmares: public education, Medicare, social security, and welfare. Where society-corrupting potheads can pass on the way nature intended, with agonizing terminal diseases caused by smoking a pack a day. Where people understand that Mother Nature can fend for herself and that Global Warming is just another liberal myth like widespread racism and the need for campaign finance reform.
George W. Bush’s America… sniff… it’s a dream too beautiful to hope for.
cainxinth:
You say “rebelling” like the US actually rules over them. Whatever damage colonialism might have done to the Middle East fifty years ago, not a single square inch of that land has been ruled by anyone other than a native of it since then (except perhaps the Soviets in Afghanistan, briefly). If Middle Easterners feel the wealth needs to be shared to a greater degree, it’s their own Kings, Shieks, Emirs and dictators who are responsible, not the US. The US may have been demagogued as a “great Satan” by Islamic militants, but there’s precious little that the US actually did to bring any misery into their lives.
So…“rebelling”? It’s a wonder that anyone can seriously see the US as a legitimate target for rebellion.
As for your example of Iran…do you realize that there’s not a single Iranian amongst the folks who struck on 9/11? The Al-Qaeda folks are Saudis, Egyptians, Pakistanis, Kuwaitis…somehow, the nationalities of the people who hate the US don’t exactly correlate with the identities of the nations that we’ve supposedly been so bad to via the CIA, etc.
First of all, don’t judge Japan by today’s standards. Before WWII, colonialism was not a dirty word. Conquest was something that nations just did. That world mindset didn’t really change until the US gave liberated Western Europe the Marshall Plan instead of running the place outright.
Second of all, Japan was at war with France over Indochina and we took France’s side, in deed as well as in word. As I said, I don’t consider Pearl Harbor to have been justified, but we were certainly doing more harm to them than we ever did to any of the Middle Easterners who primarily comprise Al Qaeda.
Chaim Mattis Keller
cmkeller your case is entirely reasonable and rational. That is its strength, and that is its weakness. While “neo-colonialism” is not a valid description, none the less many Middle Easterners see themselves as in glorious rebellion against the Great Satan, Ours Truly. To some degree, this is the utterest crapola. It is a regrettable fact that many people believe it.
They have been unsuccessful in rebelling against the numerous autocracies that repress them (with exception of the Iranians), so they are redirecting their attack against the US, a common foe that is supporting those autocracies, notably Saudi Arabia, and in some cases is responsible for their very existence. Saddam Hussein, for instance, came to power in a CIA backed Baath party coup.
Again you are incorrectly assuming that Al Queda is the end all be all in Islamic Revivalism. Iranians have as much to hate about the US as anyone else in the Middle East, possibly more. The difference is they managed to throw out our flunky dictator; why do you think Iran is a member of Bush’s “Axis of Evil” and Saudi Arabia, the nation from which the great majority of 9.11 attackers hailed from, is conspicuously absent?
I agree with you 100%, and it makes the hegemonic, neo-colonial activities of the US post WWII all the more egregious.
Then we concur; Japan was not justified in WWII. Now if I can just convince you that the situation in the Middle East is not analogous…
P.S. elucidator, what is wrong with the phrase “neo-colonial” I think it sums up the situation nicely, we aren’t planting flags anymore, but we are still asserting our influence to our benefit and frequently to the detriment of the indigenous populations.