Attack on Iraq could lead Saddam to unleash his chemical and biological weapons
-
I would have thought any moron could tell that this would be the outcome. Push a dog into a corner and it WILL bite you. The question is where are these weapons and how far can they travel. Could they reach the US ? His is a secular state, so it's unlikely to tell people religious fairy tails in order to get them to a point of being willing to die for their cause, I would have thought. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
Christian Graus wrote: Could they reach the US ? As a closer target I have to ask - could they reach the UK? As I've said before, if we can be given proof that not attacking him now will lead to him attacking us later with greater weapons, then maybe the general population could be expected to support this war. But in the meantime, why are we all living in danger? Just because GWB wants to play with his big expensive toys and get cheap oil thrown in as a bonus? :confused:
"How many eiffel towels are there in Paris?" "I'd say 10." "Where was the Berlin Wall?" "Israel"
Stupid People - posted by Loket
-
Sorry, girl question - what does WMD stand for?
"How many eiffel towels are there in Paris?" "I'd say 10." "Where was the Berlin Wall?" "Israel"
Stupid People - posted by Loket
-
Sorry, girl question - what does WMD stand for?
"How many eiffel towels are there in Paris?" "I'd say 10." "Where was the Berlin Wall?" "Israel"
Stupid People - posted by Loket
-
Aaah -thanks! It's wierd how guys just know these things. :rolleyes:
"How many eiffel towels are there in Paris?" "I'd say 10." "Where was the Berlin Wall?" "Israel"
Stupid People - posted by Loket
-
Sorry, girl question - what does WMD stand for?
"How many eiffel towels are there in Paris?" "I'd say 10." "Where was the Berlin Wall?" "Israel"
Stupid People - posted by Loket
Megan Forbes wrote: Sorry, girl question - what does WMD stand for? LOL LOL Waste Management Division. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Exposure to Saddams gas? Sure it wasn't exposure to depleted uranium? A more likely explanation surely? I think the authorities already know that Gulf War Syndrome (along with the increase in cancers suffered by allied combatants) was down to DU, but dare not admit this officially because it will cost them a fortune in reparations. If Saddam had of used gas, then surely this would be common knowledge? At the time there was an unoffical threat to unleash nuclear weapons if he used gas/bio and AFAIK the threat worked. Confused.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Exposure to Saddams gas? Sure it wasn't exposure to depleted uranium? A more likely explanation surely? Thank you Dr. Caldecott, I'll be sure to pass on your diagnosis (of a man you've never met) to the doctors that have been treating him the last few years. I'm sure they'll be thrilled. :| Mike Mullikin :beer:
Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. - David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Exposure to Saddams gas? Sure it wasn't exposure to depleted uranium? A more likely explanation surely? Thank you Dr. Caldecott, I'll be sure to pass on your diagnosis (of a man you've never met) to the doctors that have been treating him the last few years. I'm sure they'll be thrilled. :| Mike Mullikin :beer:
Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. - David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Err ... no need to be sarcastic Mike. I just find it totally bizarre that this isn't public knowledge (Saddam using gas on allied troops during the Gulf War). DU causes cancer, hence my legitimate comment!
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: People are dying because of those weapons. People are dying because of the spears owned by Kalihari bushmen, does that make them weapons of mass destruction ? I'm really sorry that your brother-in-law is sick, and I can see how that would cloud your ability to discuss this reasonably, but I don't see how your post was in any way a logical follow on to the discussion at hand. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
Christian Graus wrote: I don't see how your post was in any way a logical follow on to the discussion at hand. What discussion?? :confused: Oh, you mean the little "we're right, everyone else on the planet is a fool" lovefest you're having? Hardly a discussion in my book. If you guys don't believe that chemical and biological weapons are seriously f***ing dangerous that's your problem, but I for one don't want the world to find out the hard way. What's the old saying? "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." There is a lot of merit in that simple phrase that civilized society has ignored time and time again in our long blood-soaked history. I would have a hell of a time looking my grandchildren in the eye 20 years from now and tell them about how we had the chance to stop Saddam Hussein before he wiped out millions of souls in the middle east but we were too afraid to act. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. - David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Exposure to Saddams gas? Sure it wasn't exposure to depleted uranium? A more likely explanation surely? Thank you Dr. Caldecott, I'll be sure to pass on your diagnosis (of a man you've never met) to the doctors that have been treating him the last few years. I'm sure they'll be thrilled. :| Mike Mullikin :beer:
Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. - David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: Thank you Dr. Caldecott, I'll be sure to pass on your diagnosis (of a man you've never met) to the doctors that have been treating him the last few years. I'm sure they'll be thrilled. No way did REC deserve that sort of sarcasm! DU is commonly understood as a potential cancer-causing agent. I think most people would be surprised to learn the gas can also do the same. How about saving the sarcasm and just telling us more about the gas - as it seems from what you say that's yet another long-term and potentially fatal hazard our soldiers had to face out there - another hazard that's been effectively "swept under the carpet". "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
-
David Wulff wrote: If the World's foremost authority on global defense is releasing warnings to this effect, What !! Janes is great when it comes to operations and logistics, but I would hardly call them foremost in strategy and tactics. Read this from the beginning ! If the US and its allies wage war on Iraq, Duh !! Janes !! The war has already begun. 1. The Pentagon has changed the engagementt rules. 2. US engineers appear to be already in Kurdistan upgrading bases. 3. The Azores corridors have been reserved and are active. Also I bet the Eager mace exercise is more enhanced than reported. Don't expect GW to do what his daddy did and wait for the UN crud. GW will get in the saddle and ride the cruise missiles himself !! Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin Davies wrote: What !! Janes is great when it comes to operations and logistics, but I would hardly call them foremost in strategy and tactics. I stand by my original statement. This has nothing to do with strategy and tactics, it has everything to do with information and analysis, of which they are unparallelled. Janes don't fight wars, they analyse risks, (amongst others). To quote them "Jane's Sentinel Security Assessments are relied upon by governments, ministries, armed forces, intelligence agencies and industry all over the world for their systematic assessment of a country's structure, performance, strategic objectives, foreign investment, defence expenditure and capabilities, political developments, in-country and external threats, and more". aka "The stuff you wont find on Google", providing you have the cash to spare that is, or are employed by a company that does. The war that should be fought in Iraq is one against the humanitarian problems, and those wars should not be fought with guns and soldiers. Before even that though Afghanistan needs to be sorted out - the place is falling apart at the seams. Hardly a very good case study for the United States to throw around the international community to try and gather support. The current Sentinel Security Assessments risk for Iraq is set at 4/10. In perspective, the USA is 5/10 and the UK is 4/10, therefore my country presents the same risk to the international community as Iraq, and America even more, but I don't see anyone planing to invade our shores. If you have a subscription to the Gulf states SSA, you can read about Iraq's offensive capabilties here[^] and their defence capabilties here[^]. Colin Davies wrote: Read this from the beginning ! After you ha
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Thank you Dr. Caldecott, I'll be sure to pass on your diagnosis (of a man you've never met) to the doctors that have been treating him the last few years. I'm sure they'll be thrilled. No way did REC deserve that sort of sarcasm! DU is commonly understood as a potential cancer-causing agent. I think most people would be surprised to learn the gas can also do the same. How about saving the sarcasm and just telling us more about the gas - as it seems from what you say that's yet another long-term and potentially fatal hazard our soldiers had to face out there - another hazard that's been effectively "swept under the carpet". "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
Cheers phykell. I just did a Google search for "depleted uranium" cancer "gulf war". Interesting. I also think that had Saddam gassed our troopes WE WOULD F*CKING KNOW ABOUT IT!!! Of course, the military will NEVER admit to DU endangering the lives of the men and women that fought in the Gulf/Balkans, so perhaps they are spreading a little "poison gas" FUD ...
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Thank you Dr. Caldecott, I'll be sure to pass on your diagnosis (of a man you've never met) to the doctors that have been treating him the last few years. I'm sure they'll be thrilled. No way did REC deserve that sort of sarcasm! DU is commonly understood as a potential cancer-causing agent. I think most people would be surprised to learn the gas can also do the same. How about saving the sarcasm and just telling us more about the gas - as it seems from what you say that's yet another long-term and potentially fatal hazard our soldiers had to face out there - another hazard that's been effectively "swept under the carpet". "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
phykell wrote: No way did REC deserve that sort of sarcasm! Probably not and I apologize. I've had a bad morning and should not have been so sarcastic. Mr. Caldecott (if you're listening) - I apologize for my sarcasm. :rose: & :beer: phykell wrote: DU is commonly understood as a potential cancer-causing agent. phykell wrote: telling us more about the gas - as it seems from what you say that's yet another long-term and potentially fatal hazard our soldiers had to face out there I don't understand why anybody is surprised by this. In Vietnam troops who were exposed to Agent Orange have cancer rates way beyond normal. Nearly every week in the news scientists announce another chemical that causes cancer (sacharin, nicotine, etc...) As dangerous as radiation is, it is certainly not the only carcinogen(sp?) around. Twenty percent of the men in my brother-in-law's squad from Desert Storm have seriously screwed up lungs. A few have developed cancer (one has died) and the rest (of the 20%) have serious chronic issues. One VA doctor says he's not seen anything like this outside of old time coal miners and aerosol painters. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. - David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
-
phykell wrote: No way did REC deserve that sort of sarcasm! Probably not and I apologize. I've had a bad morning and should not have been so sarcastic. Mr. Caldecott (if you're listening) - I apologize for my sarcasm. :rose: & :beer: phykell wrote: DU is commonly understood as a potential cancer-causing agent. phykell wrote: telling us more about the gas - as it seems from what you say that's yet another long-term and potentially fatal hazard our soldiers had to face out there I don't understand why anybody is surprised by this. In Vietnam troops who were exposed to Agent Orange have cancer rates way beyond normal. Nearly every week in the news scientists announce another chemical that causes cancer (sacharin, nicotine, etc...) As dangerous as radiation is, it is certainly not the only carcinogen(sp?) around. Twenty percent of the men in my brother-in-law's squad from Desert Storm have seriously screwed up lungs. A few have developed cancer (one has died) and the rest (of the 20%) have serious chronic issues. One VA doctor says he's not seen anything like this outside of old time coal miners and aerosol painters. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. - David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: Probably not and I apologize. I've had a bad morning and should not have been so sarcastic. No problem, we all have those sometimes and I'm sure REC will feel the same way :) Mike Mullikin wrote: Twenty percent of the men in my brother-in-law's squad from Desert Storm have seriously screwed up lungs. A few have developed cancer (one has died) and the rest (of the 20%) have serious chronic issues. One VA doctor says he's not seen anything like this outside of old time coal miners and aerosol painters. That's incredibly bad - I haven't heard anything about this at all. My cousin was there too, only injury he received luckily, was a graze from some flying shrapnel but who's to say what long term effects there might be for anyone that was there, including him. I just hope for all those who do suffer in any way as a result of fighting for their country, are at least treated accordingly by the Government! "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
-
Colin Davies wrote: What !! Janes is great when it comes to operations and logistics, but I would hardly call them foremost in strategy and tactics. I stand by my original statement. This has nothing to do with strategy and tactics, it has everything to do with information and analysis, of which they are unparallelled. Janes don't fight wars, they analyse risks, (amongst others). To quote them "Jane's Sentinel Security Assessments are relied upon by governments, ministries, armed forces, intelligence agencies and industry all over the world for their systematic assessment of a country's structure, performance, strategic objectives, foreign investment, defence expenditure and capabilities, political developments, in-country and external threats, and more". aka "The stuff you wont find on Google", providing you have the cash to spare that is, or are employed by a company that does. The war that should be fought in Iraq is one against the humanitarian problems, and those wars should not be fought with guns and soldiers. Before even that though Afghanistan needs to be sorted out - the place is falling apart at the seams. Hardly a very good case study for the United States to throw around the international community to try and gather support. The current Sentinel Security Assessments risk for Iraq is set at 4/10. In perspective, the USA is 5/10 and the UK is 4/10, therefore my country presents the same risk to the international community as Iraq, and America even more, but I don't see anyone planing to invade our shores. If you have a subscription to the Gulf states SSA, you can read about Iraq's offensive capabilties here[^] and their defence capabilties here[^]. Colin Davies wrote: Read this from the beginning ! After you ha
Jane's gives a very biased pro British attitude to strategy and global issues. There are several other international organizations that do the same work as Janes, but don't have big public faces. For example stratfor.com. Janes excels at logistics in my mind but at stratagy they will probably never be first rate until they change their employment policies. One commercial forcaster I know has a cultural integration system to ensure other ideologies are not misread. As Janes learned with their slashdot excursion they are not taken seriously globally anymore. I use to read several strategy and tactics periodicals, and Janes was one of them. Seriously David they are lost as soon as they leave the European arena. But they are good at counting stuff. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Christian Graus wrote: I don't see how your post was in any way a logical follow on to the discussion at hand. What discussion?? :confused: Oh, you mean the little "we're right, everyone else on the planet is a fool" lovefest you're having? Hardly a discussion in my book. If you guys don't believe that chemical and biological weapons are seriously f***ing dangerous that's your problem, but I for one don't want the world to find out the hard way. What's the old saying? "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." There is a lot of merit in that simple phrase that civilized society has ignored time and time again in our long blood-soaked history. I would have a hell of a time looking my grandchildren in the eye 20 years from now and tell them about how we had the chance to stop Saddam Hussein before he wiped out millions of souls in the middle east but we were too afraid to act. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. - David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
You're a grumpy old man, aren't you :P Chris said 'saddam is still without WMDs (gas doesn't count, that's WWI technology).' You responded that you knew someone dying of exposure to gas, and therefore it's wrong to say that gas does not count. Well, one person who is dying, or even a thousand, does not make gas a weapon of mass destruction. You therefore jumped into the conversation with your own agenda, with no regard to what was being discussed. I can understand that, and again, I have only sympathy for your brother in law. That does not make your comment a salient point. Mike Mullikin wrote: What's the old saying? "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." The question I think on most peoples lips is not 'why Saddam', but more 'why now and not in 1991' ?? Mike Mullikin wrote: I would have a hell of a time looking my grandchildren in the eye 20 years from now and tell them about how we had the chance to stop Saddam Hussein before he wiped out millions of souls in the middle east but we were too afraid to act. It worries me that you personalise this stuff. Does Bush call you and ask you for advice ? On what level can you look at your grandchildren and claim either credit or blame ? Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
-
You're a grumpy old man, aren't you :P Chris said 'saddam is still without WMDs (gas doesn't count, that's WWI technology).' You responded that you knew someone dying of exposure to gas, and therefore it's wrong to say that gas does not count. Well, one person who is dying, or even a thousand, does not make gas a weapon of mass destruction. You therefore jumped into the conversation with your own agenda, with no regard to what was being discussed. I can understand that, and again, I have only sympathy for your brother in law. That does not make your comment a salient point. Mike Mullikin wrote: What's the old saying? "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." The question I think on most peoples lips is not 'why Saddam', but more 'why now and not in 1991' ?? Mike Mullikin wrote: I would have a hell of a time looking my grandchildren in the eye 20 years from now and tell them about how we had the chance to stop Saddam Hussein before he wiped out millions of souls in the middle east but we were too afraid to act. It worries me that you personalise this stuff. Does Bush call you and ask you for advice ? On what level can you look at your grandchildren and claim either credit or blame ? Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
Christian Graus wrote: You're a grumpy old man, aren't you Absolutely ;P Christian Graus wrote: Well, one person who is dying, or even a thousand, does not make gas a weapon of mass destruction. So what defines a WMD? Does it have to be a single explosive that causes massive property damage as well as massive death or (my choice) a single event that causes massive death. A single biological warhead dispersed in the atmosphere can kill tens of thousands. An anthrax attack to a city's water source could kill millions. Do these fit your definition of WMD? Christian Graus wrote: The question I think on most peoples lips is not 'why Saddam', but more 'why now and not in 1991' ?? Fairly simple answer: In 91 Bush Sr. bowed to the will of the UN (and the liberal left in the US) and left Saddam in control. Huge mistake. Iraq has ignored the UN resolutions ever since. Clinton was only interested in his next piece of ass and the rest of the world couldn't agree that the sky is blue let alone do anything about Iraq. Enter Bush Jr. Wait till September 11th. Boom! Boom! Kill terrorists and those who support them. Bush and Blair obviously see Saddam as a loose cannon in an important area. Christian Graus wrote: It worries me that you personalise this stuff. Does Bush call you and ask you for advice ? On what level can you look at your grandchildren and claim either credit or blame ? I suppose I could say the opposite - It worries me that you do not feel any responsibility for mankind. On what level can you look at your grandchildren and feel no remorse for the mess you've left them. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. - David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
-
Christian Graus wrote: You're a grumpy old man, aren't you Absolutely ;P Christian Graus wrote: Well, one person who is dying, or even a thousand, does not make gas a weapon of mass destruction. So what defines a WMD? Does it have to be a single explosive that causes massive property damage as well as massive death or (my choice) a single event that causes massive death. A single biological warhead dispersed in the atmosphere can kill tens of thousands. An anthrax attack to a city's water source could kill millions. Do these fit your definition of WMD? Christian Graus wrote: The question I think on most peoples lips is not 'why Saddam', but more 'why now and not in 1991' ?? Fairly simple answer: In 91 Bush Sr. bowed to the will of the UN (and the liberal left in the US) and left Saddam in control. Huge mistake. Iraq has ignored the UN resolutions ever since. Clinton was only interested in his next piece of ass and the rest of the world couldn't agree that the sky is blue let alone do anything about Iraq. Enter Bush Jr. Wait till September 11th. Boom! Boom! Kill terrorists and those who support them. Bush and Blair obviously see Saddam as a loose cannon in an important area. Christian Graus wrote: It worries me that you personalise this stuff. Does Bush call you and ask you for advice ? On what level can you look at your grandchildren and claim either credit or blame ? I suppose I could say the opposite - It worries me that you do not feel any responsibility for mankind. On what level can you look at your grandchildren and feel no remorse for the mess you've left them. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. - David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: Do these fit your definition of WMD? Yes, but poison gas does not, and Chris was claiming this is as close as they currently get. Mike Mullikin wrote: Huge mistake. Well, I think it was more that he had a more rational view of the fact that unless you invade and take over Iraq, thus bringing the Middle East crashing on your head, removing Saddam will not transform the place, just cause a replacement of a martyred leader and another generation will be raised to be told the US killed their daddy. Mike Mullikin wrote: It worries me that you do not feel any responsibility for mankind. Mankind is screwed - look around you. Mike Mullikin wrote: On what level can you look at your grandchildren and feel no remorse for the mess you've left them. On the level that I cared for other people and the environment as best I could, and was powerless to do more, and certainly not able to change the course of events set about by lunatics like OBL and GWB. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Do these fit your definition of WMD? Yes, but poison gas does not, and Chris was claiming this is as close as they currently get. Mike Mullikin wrote: Huge mistake. Well, I think it was more that he had a more rational view of the fact that unless you invade and take over Iraq, thus bringing the Middle East crashing on your head, removing Saddam will not transform the place, just cause a replacement of a martyred leader and another generation will be raised to be told the US killed their daddy. Mike Mullikin wrote: It worries me that you do not feel any responsibility for mankind. Mankind is screwed - look around you. Mike Mullikin wrote: On what level can you look at your grandchildren and feel no remorse for the mess you've left them. On the level that I cared for other people and the environment as best I could, and was powerless to do more, and certainly not able to change the course of events set about by lunatics like OBL and GWB. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
Christian Graus wrote: On the level that I cared for other people and the environment as best I could, and was powerless to do more, and certainly not able to change the course of events set about by lunatics like OBL and GWB. ...and I suppose this is the root of our differing opinions. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. - David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
-
Jane's gives a very biased pro British attitude to strategy and global issues. There are several other international organizations that do the same work as Janes, but don't have big public faces. For example stratfor.com. Janes excels at logistics in my mind but at stratagy they will probably never be first rate until they change their employment policies. One commercial forcaster I know has a cultural integration system to ensure other ideologies are not misread. As Janes learned with their slashdot excursion they are not taken seriously globally anymore. I use to read several strategy and tactics periodicals, and Janes was one of them. Seriously David they are lost as soon as they leave the European arena. But they are good at counting stuff. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
I think you misread my first sentance, which I have now highlighted for your benefit. Janes don't deal with strategy, they deal with information gathering, analysis and publishing, and they do so on a scale and in a way that is equalled not rivaled by our exterior inteligence forces. They provide unparalled depth on risk assessment in this field, and that comes straight from the mouth (or hands) of someone who has wasted plenty of time and money over the past few years to finding that out. Janes have always had a largely European objective, most likely because of it's roots, but they provide the same information as any other similar agency or group covering such a diverse area at a bare minimum. If you can afford the subscriber products like JID (cheap in price but not in content), JWIT (more expensive than the rest and very very good), and of course the SSA's that interest you, even if only get the cheap softbound versions, I advise you to. Then by all means feel free to proove me wrong using any other service you can find -- and be sure to share subscription details because I'll be signing up in a flash. Colin Davies wrote: their employment policies Care to elaborate? Colin Davies wrote: As Janes learned with their slashdot excursion they are not taken seriously globally anymore Are you talking about the cyberterrorism article for JIR? I'm sure you can't be, but either way would you care to elaborate? When I first went into this the year I left school, I looked around all of the other services I could find, and none came even close to the level and depth that Janes' journals and digests provide. You give an example in your text, Strategic Forecasting LLC, they provide a jack of all trades pish posh of topical information only barely above CNN's standards. Give it a few months and I'll read about it on news.bbc.co.uk; that is assuming I hadn't read it already. There is a saying in all the cultures of the world: "you get what you pay for". With regards to the rest of my reply, would you care to comment? Janes occupied only a paragraph and a half of my reply.
-
I think you misread my first sentance, which I have now highlighted for your benefit. Janes don't deal with strategy, they deal with information gathering, analysis and publishing, and they do so on a scale and in a way that is equalled not rivaled by our exterior inteligence forces. They provide unparalled depth on risk assessment in this field, and that comes straight from the mouth (or hands) of someone who has wasted plenty of time and money over the past few years to finding that out. Janes have always had a largely European objective, most likely because of it's roots, but they provide the same information as any other similar agency or group covering such a diverse area at a bare minimum. If you can afford the subscriber products like JID (cheap in price but not in content), JWIT (more expensive than the rest and very very good), and of course the SSA's that interest you, even if only get the cheap softbound versions, I advise you to. Then by all means feel free to proove me wrong using any other service you can find -- and be sure to share subscription details because I'll be signing up in a flash. Colin Davies wrote: their employment policies Care to elaborate? Colin Davies wrote: As Janes learned with their slashdot excursion they are not taken seriously globally anymore Are you talking about the cyberterrorism article for JIR? I'm sure you can't be, but either way would you care to elaborate? When I first went into this the year I left school, I looked around all of the other services I could find, and none came even close to the level and depth that Janes' journals and digests provide. You give an example in your text, Strategic Forecasting LLC, they provide a jack of all trades pish posh of topical information only barely above CNN's standards. Give it a few months and I'll read about it on news.bbc.co.uk; that is assuming I hadn't read it already. There is a saying in all the cultures of the world: "you get what you pay for". With regards to the rest of my reply, would you care to comment? Janes occupied only a paragraph and a half of my reply.
David your first sentence was If the World's foremost authority on global defence is releasing warnings to this effect, This is what irks me. Janes does forecast and has a history of mistakes. When I was with the army we had to study a wide variety of publications, and Janes was always noticeable for there lack of cultural ability. Let alone geographic inconsistancies. For example stratfor.com is owned privately by George Freeman, which automatically gives them an advantage. Stratfor has an incredibly high prediction success rate, and that is what coumts. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.