ps
Magiver,
You’ve not been insulted. If you would like to be insulted, start a Pit thread and I’ll show you the huge difference between my previous post and being insulted.
Humor me, SimonX: what other purpose was there for doctoring those photos of Iraqi troop buildup on the Saudi border?
Unless you’re suggesting someone in the CIA was having fun with Photoshop one afternoon, I’m stumped to think of a legitimate reason for having those around.
:rolleyes:
Two 1991 civilian satellite photos (Russian, at that) of the Iraq/SA/Kuwait border area don’t show signs of troops? Well holy poop! It’s a conspiracy! Obviously 1991 Russian commercial-grade stuff is better than our military birds of the time. I am convinced!
Out of curiousity, lets assume that it was a great big conspiracy to get our troops in there. Do you think that was the wrong course of action? Better to leave ‘the 19th province’ alone, and just buy our oil from Saddam? Not that I neccesarily disagree…
[QUOTE=Magiver]
It is a given that Saddam is a brutal whack job. He lied about every weapons program he had. QUOTE]
Note to future dictators - Thou shall not lie! :rolleyes:
I’m no expert on satellite imaging, but I can see a couple of simple rebuttals to this argument:
-
The images in question clearly showed the US forces amassed in Saudi Arabia. Whatever the source, these were not grade-Z pictures from “Big Earl’s House-o-Satellites” we’re talking about here.
-
In 1990, the US claimed it has classified images showing 250,000 troops and 1,500 tanks massed on the Saudi border. That’s a big operation. I bet you don’t need a state-of-the-art imaging system to notice an operation of that size. A low-rez commercial satellite might not produce precise estimates of troop strength, but surely it would show that something was going on. But in this case, it did not.
Unless you’ve got a specific reason to suspect the quality of the images in question, I don’t think it’s reasonable to dismiss them because of the source.
Forgive my lack of clarity.
I was specifically referencing Glaspie’s key comments.
I’d just like to point out that the question “How are US soldiers in Iraq defending your freedom?” is different from the question “How are politicians using soldiers in Iraq to defend your freedom?”. I think it’s in pretty bad taste to slip in cheap jokes at the expense of people who are trying to make the best of a horrible situation, and don’t know from one day to the next whether they ever will see their families again.
Regardless of how one feels about the Iranian democracy (and, personally I fall somewhat between you and SimonX on this…it is technically a democracy but one with some heavy-handed control by hardliners), you still haven’t explained how our invading Iraq is likely to be helpful in getting Iran to further democracize, particularly given my cites that show that the Iranians were probably trying to get us to invade Iraq in an intelligence operation:
By the way, I noticed that one of my links (the Seattle Times one) contained a typo, so here they are both again:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001935950_iranchalabi22.html
Well, since neither of us were in the room, we don’t know exactly what Glaspie said to Hussein, nor how he might have interpreted things. But let’s stick to what we do know:
- Saddam Hussein wanted to invade Kuwait for various reasons (real or imagined).
- Prior to the invasion, he talked to April Glaspie, who said something(*) along the lines of “The United States isn’t taking a stance on this issue.”
- Hussein invades Kuwait eight days later.
We don’t know what was said in step #2 here, but I think it’s reasonable to conclude that it wasn’t “Don’t you dare invade Kuwait or we’ll be on you like a ton of bricks!”
(* = Now, this site proports to have a transcript of what was said between Saddam and April. Without any indication of where the information comes from, though, I think it should be treated as a questionable source at best. Still worth a read, IMO)
But according to you, you only know of two photos, from a Russian civilian satellite. How do you know any photos were doctored? Have you seen them? Do you have some sort of evidence such photos were doctored?
Yeah, and you’ve previously characterized the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait as if it were conducted because of some sort request of the US.
Oh wait, my bad. I apologize. That was diogenes.
Sorry for that mistake. You guys just look alike and i can’t afford my medicine.
A little bit of socialized medicare can take care of that. 
Nice bait & switch there SimonX, but I think you can do better than that.
I have noticed a bit more of this kind of discorse in the last few weeks from what used to be the more reasonable right-sided members of this board. If the left-side members use these kinds of tactics, you call them on it. What rjung posted did not neccessarily have anything to do with diogenes.
I would like to see you address the points from rjung in his last post. I know you can do better than that.
Hey, why are you dragging me into this?
Ok, yes, I pretty much think that Saddam was deliberately suckered into invading Kuwait. So sue me.
As to the OP, the toops are defending us from nothing. That doesn’t make them any less noble, it just makes their deaths more tragic because they are completely unnecessary.
I really and truly was remembering an exhange between me and dio. Without my medicine, I thought that it was rjung. I conflated some of rjung’s comments about bias with dio’s comments about the US ‘sort of asking’ Hussein to invade Kuwait.
I fcuked up again.
As you can see, I still don’t have my medicine.
Sorry about the meds SimonX, I hope you come back around.
My larger point is this; the right-sided members of this board have not been holding their end of the stick lately. I can go to many boards to read the likes of Brutus and such but this board is where I look to find reasonable positions from people like SimonX, AirmanDoors and John Mace. I do not agree with much of what they post, but I respect their opinions and look forward to what they have to say.
As for the OP, I believe this adventure of ours into Iraq has damaged our credibility with much of the rest of the world. I believe our safety has decreased as a result.
No, not really. All the Russian images showed, according to the cite, were “US build-up – jet fighters standing wing-tip to wing-tip at Saudi bases”. Unfortunately for us all, tanks and troops do not deploy at conveniently photographable bases. They deploy in the boonies. Given that the boonies in question are several thousand square miles in size, how the hell can two Russian images provide conclusive proof?
Sure, a lower grade system would show something if it was looking in the right place.
To summarize: It’s a big place, only two images are discussed, and Russian imaging sucked.(Probably still does, but certainly early nineties stuff had pretty shoddy resolution). The American KH-11 series certainly had better resolution, and we were able to spank out more than two images of the area.