Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: redfish who wrote (56584)	9/21/2004 2:40:26 PM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

nice moves by the 'benevolant' US Microwave gun to be used by US troops on Iraq rioters By Tony Freinberg and Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent (Filed: 19/09/2004) telegraph.co.uk Microwave weapons that cause pain without lasting injury are to be issued to American troops in Iraq for the first time as concern mounts over the growing number of civilians killed in fighting. The non-lethal weapons, which use high-powered electromagnetic beams, will be fitted to vehicles already in Iraq, which will allow the system to be introduced as early as next year. Using technology similar to that found in a conventional microwave oven, the beam rapidly heats water molecules in the skin to cause intolerable pain and a burning sensation. The invisible beam penetrates the skin to a depth of less than a millimetre. As soon as the target moves out of the beam's path, the pain disappears. Because there are no after-effects, the United States Department of Defence believes that the weapons will be particularly useful in urban conflict. The beam could be used to scatter large crowds in which insurgents operate at close quarters to both troops and civilians. "The skin gets extremely hot, and people can't stand the pain, so they have to move - and move in the way we want them to," said Col Wade Hall of the Office of Force Transformation, a body formed in November 2001 to promote rapid improvement across all of the American armed services. Rich Garcia, a spokesman for the Air Force Research Laboratory in New Mexico, where the systems were developed, took part in testing the weapon and was subjected to the microwave beam which has a range of one kilometre. "It just feels like your skin is on fire," he said. "[But] when you get out of the path of the beam, or shut off the beam, everything goes back to normal. There's no residual pain." A heated battle on a crowded Baghdad street last week that left 16 Iraqis dead, highlighted once again the pressing need to reduce the number of civilian casualties, and at the same time prevent further damage to relations between American troops and the Iraqi population. American commanders later admitted using seven helicopter-launched rockets and 30 high-calibre machine gun rounds in last Sunday's incident. The armoured vehicles will be named Sheriffs once they have been modified to carry the microwave weapons, known as the Active Denial System (ADS). Col Hall said that US army and US marine corps units should receive four to six ADS equipped Sheriffs by September 2005. The project was initiated only three months ago but US military chiefs intend to rush the Sheriffs into the front line, believing that they can be of immediate assistance. In another development, the Sheriffs will be fitted with Gunslinger, a rapid-fire gun currently under development that will detect enemy snipers and automatically fire back at them. If the Sheriffs prove successful, their use will be expanded in combat zones. They will also be deployed for security at ports and air force bases, and could take part in border patrols.

To: redfish who wrote (56584)	9/21/2004 6:20:32 PM
From: Mark Konrad	Respond to of 89467

Kinda late for Kerry to "suddenly" realize the hazards of basing his entire presidential campaign on 4 months of service 35 years ago...less than ONE PERCENT of his adult life. Maybe it's not too late to draft Dean...YEEEEAAAAAHHHHH!!--MK--

To: redfish who wrote (56584)	9/21/2004 9:08:09 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Prudence: no longer a conservative virtue? _______________________________ E.J. Dionne, Jr. - Washington Post Writers Group 09.17.04 - WASHINGTON -- I am blessed with a lot of conservative friends. Many of them fall into that now controversial category, “neoconservative.” In addition to liking these folks, I respect their creed. Conservatism teaches us useful things: an appreciation of tradition, family and religion, a wariness of great big plans to improve the world, and an attentiveness to the unintended consequences of well-intended actions. It may sound contrived, but my affection for conservatives and conservatism has a lot to do with why I'm so frustrated over the political choices these friends of mine are making. I agree with them that the spread of democracy is good for both the United States and the world. I believe there are appropriate uses for American military power. While our country has not always used its power wisely, our role in defeating the Nazis and Soviet communists vindicates the idea that the United States has been a force for good. But I fear that my neocon buddies have embarked on a project in Iraq that risks sabotaging the very ideas and policies they cherish, in part because they did not consider those unintended consequences they so often advise us liberals to think about. As a practical matter, I think my friends should be furious at President Bush's administration over how it has handled Iraq. The idea that our country had the capacity to transform Iraq into a thriving democracy was always a reach. But if we were going to make this enormous effort, the conservative thing to do was to assume from the beginning that it would be very hard. That's why it's astounding -- and un-conservative -- that we went in with the arrogant assumption that we are so good and our ideals were so right that even if we tried to do this with too small a force, everything would turn out fine anyway. How could conservatives ignore the military professionals who rightly insisted that we needed many more troops to pull off such an ambitious endeavor? Isn't prudence, as the first President Bush used to remind us, a conservative virtue? If my conservative friends were going to go out there to transform the world -- a big and seemingly liberal objective -- they needed to be honest and prepare the American people for a long and difficult struggle. They should have insisted that the effort be paid for and not depend on enormous budget deficits thrown onto those future generations whom they so often invoke. The conservative thing to do was to prepare for the worst, not to assume the best. For neoconservatives who believe in the robust use of American power, Bush's Iraq venture now threatens to be their Waterloo. Americans who initially doubted the benefits of this war gave Bush and the neocons the benefit of the doubt. If this venture bogs down into a long, violent and ambiguous struggle because of poor planning, unrealistic assumptions and know-it-all leadership, doubts about the use of American military power will grow. An Iraq Syndrome will replace the Vietnam Syndrome we were supposed to have overcome. That will be the ultimate in unintended consequences. And, by the way, is this policy really rooted in a commitment to the spread of democracy? In light of President Vladimir Putin's recent moves, it's not hard to imagine that my conservative friends would pose this question if a Democrat were in the White House: Who lost Russia? Yet hasn't the current administration shown a remarkable tolerance for Putin's steady march toward authoritarianism? As recently as Sunday, Bush had described Putin as “a man who I admire." Maybe that explains why we let slide by Putin's brazen efforts to use government power to intimidate and undermine his opposition. Hey, Putin supported Bush and flat taxes, so the guy must be great. This is the same Putin who earlier this week, in the name of fighting terrorism, took the final steps toward turning his regime into dictatorship-lite. Finally, on Wednesday, Bush expressed his concern about decisions “that could undermine democracy in Russia." It would have been nice to hear those words earlier on. I know that many of my conservative and neocon friends despise what's happening in Russia and privately bemoan the mistakes Bush has made. But they have thrown their lot in with the administration on the theory that if Bush loses, all they consider important in foreign policy will be lost. I'd implore them to think about the likelihood that so much of what they think matters will be utterly discredited if our country stays on its current course. (c) 2004, Washington Post Writers Group URL: workingforchange.com