 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! October 7, 2004 Gimme SanctionBy GreyhawkThe soundtrack to this post is the Stones' Gimme Shelter. Don't know why it plays in my mind while I write this but it does. That voodoo sound at the start always sent shivers down my spine though... How many times has this happened to you: You're flying into Baghdad on a C130 along with a lot of other GIs and some members of the Iraq Survey Group whose report will soon be released and while waiting for the plane engines to fire up (after which point conversation becomes impossible) you say: "So what's the bottom line?" And one responds: "He didn't have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, but he could have reconstituted his programs in a matter of months." Which is exactly what I've thought for quite a while (ahem) please see my April 6 2003 post here. Really, it's short, go read, and note that the Thunder Run was ongoing at that time, but the media spin had already begun. But given the myriad reasons why the time was right for ending the Hussein regime it's an issue of only minor importance to me - more significant as political strategy than military - but what do I know? I did know on hearing that ISG response that many in the media would ignore the second part entirely, and miss only the "stockpiles" part of the first half. Such is life. Sitting here with my feet in the sands of Iraq the question seems of little importance. I feel about as disappointed as I did when the Iron Curtain fell and the Soviet Union was revealed to be not as advanced as we once thought - was the cold war therefore a waste of time? So now you have available to you the Iraq Survey Groups full response, or the one-sentence condensed version above. What's new? Well, Oil-for-Food tie-ins and some other things that NY Times readers will certainly not be confronted with any time soon. It's a worthwhile read, and for your entry port into it I'd recomend this post from LGF. Because if I told you any more I'd have to kill you. Hah! Surely I'm kidding, right? Enjoy. Posted by Greyhawk / October 7, 2004 8:31 PM | Permalink 2 TrackBacksThere are those who want to believe in a world community that can solve the problems of the world. Unfortunately, the UN is not that organization. When the report of the Iraq Survey Group became known, the headline was one Read More Greyhawk at the Mudville Gazette has a succinct echo of my own position on WMDs and Iraq. You're flying into Baghdad on a C130 along with a lot of other GIs and some members of the Iraq Survey Group whose report will soon be released and while waitin... Read More 17 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
I've got a TS-SCI clearance. Tell me more! (We'll just forget about that need-to-know part for now.)(grin)
Me, too, but I'm just here for the Stones...
Well I think the foreign media will keep highlighting France, Russia and China and their 'principled' stand against the war ($$$$$$$$$). The media can try (and succeed) but the NEW MEDIA ain't letting them off the hook.
"How many times has this happened to you:
You're flying into Baghdad on a C130 along with a lot of other GIs..."
Yeah, you pretty well lost me there. ;-) LOL
but if it helps, I felt like I was there!!!
Isn't it comforting, G'Hawk that I may well have caught a ride into Da Nang from that very same airplane back in '66?
Concur with your findings. Your take squares with my experience (as a former ISG guy). Charlie Duelfer is an honorable man (and a hell of a fast runner).
His entire report deserves to be read, not just the parts that partisans of the left or the right want you to read.
Good lord I love you Greyhawk. Your blog has become a must-read for me daily. God Bless you and your family and God Bless our troops.
Greyhawk
I think it is more accurate to say that it would take several years for Saddam to have actually developed new usable WMD, not some months your quote infers. All while the U.S. with its surveillance abilities would be watching the reconstruction of plants and other busy activities to set up manufacturing again.
Why support a ship that is sinking of its own feces and close off reality with brain fog. Hawkhawk, I hope you and all the other servicepeople, other Americans and friends are safe and will stay that way. The only way I can see that happening for sure is to stop the Bush war on Iraq and leave.
Respectfully Pete I think you are misinterpreting facts. Frankly and frighteningly, it doesn't take that much to make basic chemical weapons such as mustard gas. All the information suggests that Saddam could easily restart his weapons programs. I'm not even taking into consideration the trailer labs whose only feasible purpose so far could be military ventures. And finally, this debate illustrates that even the most sophisicated intelligence operations in the world has serious weaknesses in which low tech can counteract high tech(face to face communication, blind drops, etc).
This war is important for many reasons. The Bush Administration sees it. Al-Quida sees it. It's unfortunate, that those on the left either see it as a quagmire or an imperialist American venture.
P Urich: "All the information suggest that Suddam could easily restart his weapons programs."
Really? I think you are exaggerating there. If all the existing facilities had been destroyed, how easily would it be to gear up again with much equipment needed to be purchased that was under sanctions. Look at the case of Iran and N. Korea, getting the centrifuges right is no easy task. What information are you refering to; get me so cites.
You claim about the "trailer," Colin Powells trailer, has been debunked for a year now.
Bush's war was not necessary and any sane person now knows it.
Petey,
The left would like to debunk the WMD trailer story, but you haven't succeeded.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40777
Incoming
Pete sometimes I swear I think you're a Republican operative trying to make the opposition look bad. "Months" isn't my quote - it's the ISG's. And it doesn't infer anything - it states it rather forthrightly. Please read carefully. Whether your "years" estimate is more accurate than professionals and those of us in country is up to the individual readers. For added weight to your words you may want to present you credentials though - but even if it's just your "feelings" that you're expressing that's fine too. Thanks for sharing. And thanks for your interest in the national defense.
Having worked for years as a chemist I can tell you that producing certain WMD, particularly chemical, is not that difficult. You don't need a dedicated "WMD" lab or facility. There must be many laboratory facilities in Iraq that could be used. Note that I do not say converted. In some cases there would be no conversion, you just use the facilities and instruments as is. It's a laboratory--it's designed for this. A dedicated facility can be more efficient and, importantly, much safer for preparing larger batches. The months of preparation that you would have in the U.S. is mostly due to safety considerations--proper ventilation, containment, forced air supply system for suits, etc. If you aren't too worried about the safety of your lab techs you can definitely cut corners.
MuddyMo,
You hit it my friend. That is exactly correct. ANY insecticide plant can turn from insect killer to people killer in a few days, as the two substances are chemically similar.
Pete,
Nice try, but POSSESSION of WMD's was not the issue, the issues were:
1. implacable (means unbending, unswerving) hatred of the US,
2. the desire for power,
3. proven ties with terrorists including Abu Nidal and Al Quaeda,
4. proven capability and desire to attack the US (remember the aborted attempt to assassinate Bush 41?)
5. Need to plant a democracy in the Middle East,
6. Need to send a message to other terrorist-sponsors that they will be held responsible (note Libya's roll-over),
All these, despite your "DNC-playbook" answers were the reason. NO ONE said that they were tied in to 9/11! NO ONE said that they were imminently going to attack US interests (See Bush's Jan 2003 State of Union speech "We need not wait until an attack is imminent!") Repeat the lies till you believe them, then cower in your corner waiting for the next attack while your betters protect you.
OOPS...was that too harsh?
First of all, there was uranium in the enriching process. The US felt there was such a danger that they airlifted it out. Secondly, the trailers were never disproven. Intelligence experts agree that the design is slanted in such a way that chemical weapons are the only logical conclusion. They didn't find chemical residue since incredibly powerful chemicals were used to disinfect the trailers.
Greyhawk
Pleased to see you thought Saddam had to go even if there were no WMD.
My article "The Unspoken Case for War with Iraq" (Published Oct 2002 in Sierratimes.com, also at www.fightingliberalfundamentalism.com/unspoken.html) explains why GW's case for war with Iraq back then was "built on quick sand" but that the case for war was actually imperative. I think I was the only commentator to argue this, and the only one I know of who has been proved right.
If you ever have the time, check out the article, and the web site. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
John
The arguments against the war are so fundamentally flawed that they defy logic and, most importantly, the facts. I am - strike that was - a lifelong democrat, but lets look at the record for the left wingers who have hijacked my party. Rolf Ekeus, a former Swedish Ambassador to the U.S., was the head of the first UNSCOM inspection team. He is now the the Director of the Stockholm INternational Peace Research Institute. That should get my leftwing friend's attention.
After years of the French and Russians undercutting his every move to find WMD during the 90s(and UNSCOM I found thousands of tons of W?WMDs, and listted thousands of tons more still missing). according to his successor, Richard Butler, another well respected diplomat from Australia, Mr. Ekeus resigned after his children were threatened by Saddam's thugs. And, as you all recall, Mr. Butler and UNSCOM were run out of Baghdad with AK-47s pointed at them in NOv. 1998. HOwever, Mr. Ekeus made it very clear in the Washington POst on June 29-2003, that Saddam remaining in power with his programs intact - regardless of WMD in existence- was unacceptable, and, in his view, justified military intervention.
Mr, Ekeus' credentials are unassailable from the left, and his experience in trying to find WMD in the face of Saddam's lies and deceit, and the duplicity and mendacity of Saddam's whores (France and Russia)behind the scenes from the end of the war through Mr. Ekeus' departure in 1997 is more than sufficient to venture such an opinion.
Oh, by the way, you might want to read Richard Butler's prescient book "The Greatest Threat" which was published in 2000, and not only documented Saddam's cover up of its WMD stockpiles and programs from 97 to Nov. 98, but predicted the U.N. debacle headed by France, Russia, and to a lesser degree China. The record is replete with evidence supporting intervention.
However, one must open one's eyes to see the truth.
My left wing bretheren have misused and abused the principles of freedom that were paid for with blood during the days of Roosevelt and Truman. The "leaders" of the party now are timid little souls who live in an ideological fog inside a closet where they curl into fetal positions and let better men than they are protect them, and then pretend to be martyrs for freedom before the cameras. How sad. After Moveon.org and Howard Dean infected my party, I am a Democrat no more.