Where are the Apologies?

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by the new JR Jansen: Ron, your first point is really bad and offensive (and yes i did see the smiley). I apologize to you and anyone else I may have offended with that remark. The smilies were to point out the what I'd said was ridiculous. Of course, the fact that Turkey is a Muslim nation has nothing to do with the decision made by the three NATO nations. My country (Belgium) has never said anything about not defending Turkey in case of a war but as Ar-Cunin said, there is no war at the moment. Secondly, if those are the rules then live with it. If 3 countries can hold off a decision then that's the way it is. It sound a lot like whining to me. Whining that a few aren't going to listen to the USA. No whining intended. The decision to hold off on Turkey's request isn't going to stop the US from defending Turkey, but it does send all nations a message that maybe NATO isn't going to provide protection between nations when requested. If your nation requested help from NATO, you'd probably be upset if the US blocked that request. Another point is that it's not only the defense of Turkey that is so big an issue over here. Other things in that treaty state the releaf (sp) of US troops in Afghanistan and the Balkans. Now where do you think these troops are going to be sent ? It's a way to strongarm, undirectly, the doubters into the war rethoric and as far as we are concerned, there is no war yet.

There is no war yet, it's true. Is what the UN inspectors say Friday going to make a difference? I guess waiting until after the fact is the way some would choose to go.

Again, on the Muslim nation point, I meant no offense. I was being sarcastic about similar anti-Muslim allegications made against the US during this ordeal(not by you).

[ 02-13-2003, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: First of all why does Turkey need to have protection? Because they asked for it? [img]smile.gif[/img] Your point is taken though. Obviously they feel the need for defense because of a possible war with Iraq. They've committed to be involved, and since they have a different feeling on this issue than France, Germany, and Belgium they aren't entitled to NATO defense any longer? Secondly, after that one is answered: why didnt they need protection before right now? Because they didn't feel the need to request it. Would you feel better if they asked for it 6 months ago? IF they asked for it six months ago, why didn't they ask for it 6 months and 1 day ago? If they asked for it 6 months and 1 day ago, why didn't they ask for it 6 months and 2 days ago? Just like your actions yesterday may be completely different than your actions today. The world changes day to day. Thirdly for Ronn and others (this is more of a question and hypothesis i would like to see analyzed a bit).. the whole protection of spies argument really irks me for some reason. I can understand the nature of that reasoning and the plausability of it. But the number of people acting as liasons between the Iraqi government and Al-Queda cannot be very large. that is a total guess on my part and i freely admit it but I can't see it being any other way, i dont think that there could be many operatives interacting between the two sides. That number grows even smaller when you account for operatives who might be able to filter intel to western intelligence agencies. Do you think that is the case? That their would not be many people who would have access to be a liason between secular iraqi government and the hardline islamist terrorists? Does that sound reasonable that it would be a small number of people? If it does sound reasonable, which it does imo, then just by virtue of the fact that their cannot be that many operatives who would be involved in dubious affairs between the two.. any information, even source protected in the press, would put said spies in danger of being exposed and without doubt imo under intense scrutiny. Can't tell the people to protect the spies theory is bogus and hereafter this post.. debunked!

Um...ok, if you say so. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

NOT!

The sensitive information goes beyond people and extends to audio, data, and video recon sources and more that are too sensitive to be shared publicly. It's much more than just human intel.

Human intel is extremely important. The information of a small number of people you use as your example would only be shared at the highest levels of government because of its sensitive nature, and that's exactly why you and I haven't seen it.

You actually un-debunked(bunked? rebunked? inbunked? [img]smile.gif[/img] ) the theory by providing an example.

[ 02-13-2003, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Moiraine: I personally find this argument "under the belt" (do you get my meaning ? I mean it is unfair). I mean, I am feeling confused about the necessity or not of a war, but if there is one argumentation that doesn't convince me at all, it is "you owe us gratitude for the help we gave you 50 years ago" ... I think you mean "below the belt", and it's quite appropriate. The idea that France should follow the US blindly because of a sense of WWII gratitude is silly. Following the US blindly as a "thank you" isn't a good idea for anyone, the US included. One of the only examples I find remotely relevant regarding WWI is the attempts by England and France to appease Hitler despite his aggression and how that appeasement ended. Sometimes a peaceful solution isn't an option, no matter how badly it may be desired, and sometimes in an effort to ensure peace, an aggressor is given more time to achieve their goal. Well, gratitude you had, back then - for 30 years, everything that came to us from the US was great. We copied your music, your clothing, your movies, we read your books, followed your causes - we tried to imitate you in every way. But I don't think we imagined that you were expecting us to shut up as a given. I don't think we expect France to shut up, but we are expressing, sometimes very poorly and inappropriately, our disagreement with the French stance, just as the French are expressing their disagreement with the current US position. What I mostly feel right now is sadness. Because, over the disagreements, it seems to me, from what I read and hear, that dissension and hate are showing their ugly faces (I am not talking about Ironworks, mainly from what I read in papers and hear at the radio). People are calling each others names, which will stick as poisoned darts in our hearts no matter what happens. Bin Laden and his terrorists must be laughing right now. For hate is their goal - and we are kindly obliging them ... I don't know if a war will happen or not. I don't know if the war is necessary, if it is for the good, or not. But I wish with all my heart that, whatever happens, we people stand united.

What you say is so true, and you say it very well.

[ 02-13-2003, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Moiraine]

Thanks Ronn. I meant the expression you use in a boxing contest when a guy hits the other below the waist. I didn't know the right English expression, but that was the feeling I wanted to convey. Unfairness mixed with cheating. And not worthy of the citizens of such a great country.

Thanks also for your approval of the rest of my post. Let's never forget who is the real ennemy, who we are fighting against - and it is NOT any of us.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Thanks Ronn. I meant the expression you use in a boxing contest when a guy hits the other below the waist. I didn't know the right English expression, but that was the feeling I wanted to convey.

Hitting below the belt. I knew that's what you meant. Your English is better than mine most of the time, but my French? It sucks! I can count to 20 though.

[Night Stalker]

Uh Djinn, I was using the word 'spy' as metaphore for the entire intel community. Most nations have established intel communities, all with different cappabilities in collection (operatives, technology), analysis, and counter intel. They all have the same thing in common though. They know the information they have is valuable to everyone. Not only the actual info, but how they got it, and how fast and acuratly they can process it.

So when I was refering to the "spy's paradox", I was calling to light that those in the buisness of discovering secrets, don't like revealing them - to anyone. Their question is "How much of what to reveal and when?".

So no, you have not debunked anything. So here's your paradox .... would you have those that are in the frying pan so to speak reveal everything they know, and how they got it and forfeight their lives? I thought the whole stalling for peace thing was to prevent people from dying. But surely your desire for knowlege comes at the cost of human life. Or are some lives worth less than others?

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Let's never forget who is the real ennemy, who we are fighting against - and it is NOT any of us.

So very true [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: So when I was refering to the "spy's paradox", I was calling to light that those in the buisness of discovering secrets, don't like revealing them - to anyone. Their question is "How much of what to reveal and when?".

Ironicaly not revealing info would be a breach of UN-resolution 1441 - which requires all UN members to tell the weapon-inspectors what knowlegde they have about Iraqi WoMD.

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: The decision to hold off on Turkey's request isn't going to stop the US from defending Turkey, but it does send all nations a message that maybe NATO isn't going to provide protection between nations when requested.

There's just one small problem. Due to internal Turkish politics they might not be too happy having to 'run to America' for help - especially since the conflict is with another muslim nation.

The recent election in Turkey gave a muslim party (PK) absolute majority - and while it's leadership understand 'real-politics', it's support-base won't be overjoyed at aiding USA against Iraq. It would have been so much easier to sell the help, if it came from NATO.

[ 02-13-2003, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Ar-Cunin ]

[Djinn Raffo]

Debunked!

Ok the audio/video/recon sources.. why do they need to be protected, i am generally curious and would like to know? Yeah these images of Mustafa Bin TerrorG came from the camera of a spyplane. where is the protection there? "Oh no this means that their are planes taking pictures hovering around up there!!!" Everyone already knows that. Someone pointed a whisper 2000 into the desert and picked up a soundbyte... we can't tell anyone that. The cel phone tapping: well anyone can have a scanner and listen to other peoples cel conversations.. a friend of mine has one and does it all the time.. unless the phone itself was literally bugged with a device. In which case that falls under the category of human spy. And that man/womans identity is in danger of being exposed by the small number of people theory..

Of course Night Stalker i understand that intel communities dont want to reveal their sources be they human or technological. And that's great, that goes without saying. They dont have to reveal their sources. But they could reveal the information. ah.. but that would let others know about the sources, their data collection practices, and their processing of information procedures. Only if it was a human involved wouldn't it? If the information is revealed the enemy will know where the leak came from. To me that means it is a human on the other end. The enemy can't do anything about it if the info is coming from satelite reconassaince.. and it if it comes from satelite or spyplane images.. well.. it wouldnt be the first time and i dont know how that reveals anything about data analysis or collection?

How did the west know that Usama Bin Laden was in Afghanistan? It couldn't have been 'common knowledge'. Why in that instance was the information revealed and not in this one. After all both are dealing with Al Queda?

I generally think that their is some inconsitency here with revealing intelligence and it is troubling imo if that is cassus belli.

And you are right Night Stalker. It is a paradox. IMO No human life is worth more than another. But either way if the info is valid and revealed or valid and not revealed.. it leads to war. And alot more people are going to die. If alot more people are going to die then it would sit more comfortably if we knew the truth of the matter.

George Bush said in his state of the union: "The history of the world will be determined by free men." To me that means the history of the world will NOT be decided behind closed doors.

[ 02-13-2003, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]