Archive for October, 2003

A reader sends a heads up about a recent email that claims to be from Microsoft’s Program Security Center. It looks pretty legit.

DO NOT OPEN ANY ATTACHMENT ON ANY EMAIL LIKE THIS. Microsoft DOES NOT send patches out via email. Ever.

Keep your system up to date by using Windows Update. Or avoid Microsoft software altogether.

Here’s the e-mail.

Okay, I’m not really suggesting that you actually avoid Microsoft software altogether.

Don’t forget Murdoc’s Chess Problem of the Day at MO’s chess sub-blog.

Master of None: Who Armed Iraq?

Michael Williams notes a March Newsmax article about the myth that America armed Saddam. In it, Charles R. Smith wrote

Name one weapon in the Iraqi arsenal that was made in the United States.

I have offered that challenge to dozens of so-called anti-war activists who claim that the U.S. armed Iraq. According to these protesters for “peace,” George Bush Sr. and Ronald Reagan supplied Iraq with tons of weapons.

None have been able to name the specific weapon “missile, bomb, fighter, tank or shell” that is U.S.-made or has U.S. equipment installed in it. None have been able to name any specific weapon system.

Williams writes

Everyone seems to buy into this myth, but the facts of the matter are pretty simple: even when we were ostensibly “allied” with Iraq during the 1980s, America was never a major supplier of arms to Saddam Hussein. From what I’ve seen, the most that can be substantiated is that America sold $200,000 worth of weapons to Iraq between 1972 and 1990, out of a total of $40 billion spent by Iraq during the same period.

MO readers may recall a post about this very subject, and another that included a handy graph. The results came from research by a Swedish disarmament group.

I imagine that a fair number of “gifts” were given to Iraq that maybe didn’t show up in the numbers, but nothing that would really change the rankings. And I doubt that the US is the only country that gave undocumented military aid to Iran’s opponent.

Also, some civilian-use equipment, especially helicopters, can be modified to military use quickly and cheaply. I doubt that this stuff shows up in the numbers quoted. And there seems to have been a fair amount of US military equipment sold to Iraq by other nations after they bought it from us. But in both of these cases, as above, I can’t really see this as being more common for the US than for the other countries on the lists.

While searching for more info on the subject, I came across an Alternet.org story that tries to prove that the US sold arms to Iraq because we sold arms to Somalia. I’m not exactly sure how that proves anything, but they point out that those very arms were used shoot down Blackhawk helicopters and kill US troops in 1993. Except that Russian-built RPGs were used to shoot down those helicopters. They’ve proven a point, all right.

UPDATE: I’ve been thinking about this some more, and it occurred to me that I remember hearing about the possibility that US-made Hawk missiles might be used against our planes in 1991. A google revealed that Iraq did indeed possess some of the anti-aircraft missiles, but they had been captured from Kuwait during Iraq’s 1990 invasion of that country.

Also, I came across a recent post on The Friendly Ghost that discusses the French-made Roland missiles Polish troops found in Iraq earlier, some of France’s lies about sales of Rolands to Iraq, and other good stuff. Check it out.

In the name of fairness, here are some other pictures of the recent anti-war protests in Washington, DC. These folks are not doing their agenda any service.

The numbers didn’t look nearly as impressive as the stories indicate. When it’s a Saddam statue being pulled down, it’s staged with paid attendees. When it’s an anti-war protest, it’s a lot bigger than it looks. And am I the only one who’s noticed that mid-week protests seem to attract a lot more people than those on Saturday? It seems that students the world over are suddenly fanatically loyal to any cause that gives them an excuse to ditch class for an afternoon. It defies belief!

Obviously, the picture taker picked out the ones that support her position. I’ll grant that. What I’m asking is that poeople who support the other position grant that the pictures shown in most big media stories are also hand-picked.

I’m listening, but all I hear are the crickets chirping. (via Instapundit)

L. Paul Bremer is on FoxNews Sunday, which I’m watching via the wonder of TiVo. He just said “terrorists declared war on us on September 11th.” This is something that we hear a lot about, and something that I think actually distorts the actual situation. A defacto state of war has existed for years, if not decades. I realize that using 9/11 as a rallying cry is effective propaganda, and I don’t really have an issue with it, but preaching it constantly is certainly going to enhance the perception that we’re out for revenge. Our position, which I believe and support, is that we’re out to eradicate international terrorism.

Revenge for 9/11 supported the campaign in Afghanistan. It does not support our invasion of Iraq. If we constantly beat the 9/11 drum and go on national TV and say things like “the war started on September 11th,” we are actually working against ourselves.

Bremer also points out that Iraq is on the way to becoming a democracy and that this fact will bring terrorists to Iraq for as long as the neighbors aren’t supportive of that form of government. And that we cannot make Iraq secure without help from the local Iraqis, both in the form of Iraqi military and police forces and intelligence from the population.

Also, Tony Snow (who I believe deserves more credit as a news program host than he generally gets, regardless of your political beliefs) just posted a quote from Gen. Sanchez:

“The enemy has evolved, a little bit more lethal, a little bit more complex, a little bit more sophisticated. As long as we are here, the coalition needs to be prepared to take casualties.”

He said this on October 2nd. Although I don’t think anyone like to hear that, it’s the sort of thing that our leaders need to be saying.

The Rumsfeld memo said we’re in for “a long, hard slog.” Although opponents gleefully point out that this proves we’re in over our heads, I think it’s actually the sort of honest, open talk that our leaders haven’t been engaged in. Let’s hear more of it. From both sides.

I’m not holding my breath. For either side.

UPDATE: Debbye at Being American in T.O. notes the link to the transcript.

Forbes.com: US Rep. Pelosi says Wal-Mart arrests “terrorizing”

I’m having trouble with this one.

U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said on Friday police raids on dozens of U.S. Wal-Mart stores in the search for illegal immigrants this week amounted to “terrorizing” workers.

“It instills a great deal of fear in people who are only trying to earn a living and put food on the table for their family,” Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters on a Congressional visit to Mexico.

I guess I’d hate to see what she said if she visited Osama bin Laden in his cave…

I’ve moved the daily chess problems to their own sub-blog. Check it out.

I will publish the Friday problem on MO also. Just so no one misses out.

Space.com: New Station Crew Was Launched Despite Safety Warnings

Although some experts thought that there were several safety issues that needed to be resolved, NASA gave the okay for Russia to launch the latest crew to the International Space Station.

Robert Mirelson, said there was a full discussion by mid- and management-level engineers and it was their conclusion that despite the experts’ concerns, the launch would be “well within the parameters of safety.”

Haven’t we heard that one before? The systems in question are unreliable medical equipment and air and water monitoring devices. And the complete lack of a radiation detector.

Oh, that’s all?

And this is the most troubling of all:

The Washington Post reported Thursday, however, that two officials overseeing health and environmental conditions on the space station didn’t sign off on the launch, instead signing a dissent that warned about “the continued degradation” of the environmental monitoring and health maintenance systems and exercise equipment vital to the astronauts’ well being.

They went ahead and launched even though the officials overseeing the systems in question not only didn’t sign off, but instead issued a warning of the dangers.

Is this the new safety-first NASA in action?

The new mission commander was told that the monitoring devices weren’t working properly, but there was not any reason to suspect that air or water conditions were at risk.

Well, without the monitoring equipment, we don’t know, do we? And if something did go wrong, would they know in time without reliable sensors? NASA’s response is basically that the astronauts can abandon ship if something goes wrong.

This is maybe being overblown, but I think that’s justified in the wake of Columbia. NASA like to point out that the crew of the ISS says they’re confident that everything is fine. Well, I’m sure the seven astronauts aboard the Columbia felt that way also. As did the crew and passengers aboard the Titanic.

If anything, NASA should be falling all over itself to over-protect its people. That they seem to be doing exactly the opposite mystifies me.

Solution to 10/23 Problem: (highlight to reveal)
1. Kc2

The book I’m pulling these from only gives one move for the “mate in two” problems. This one isn’t all that difficult, and it seems that the options are: 1. Kc2 Ka3 2. Qb3++ or 1. Kc2 Ka5 2. Nc6++. Are we buying that?