Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
-- On 1 Apr 2003 at 11:48, Mike Rosing wrote: Which is why MAD works. But a regular bombing run on a few oil refineries would put the US in a world of hurt really quickly, enough for them to pull a lot of their troops out of places that happen to be too close to Russia and China. Mexico isn't entirely happy with US policy, I'm sure they could be bribed into letting the other powers use their air and land space for a limited attack. The US won't use nukes to retaliate, which was the origin of this line of argument. This US will not retaliate argument seems insane. Maybe the US would not use nukes, but whatever it did use, everyone in the political apparatus of Mexico would be dead, and and some impressive bits of China and or Russia would be in flames. The US, like every other organization and bunch of people, will respond if attacked. What do you expect?Its in our genes, since we were worms in the precambrian mud. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG h36DwI5e5vKElHg28/4q4kfgUVDbydGrPgeZEKTW 4yX4xozKZVtShKVVoYTUKqhgLxnvl1fTT1cTOFgzC
Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
-- On 1 Apr 2003 at 11:48, Mike Rosing wrote: Which is why MAD works. But a regular bombing run on a few oil refineries would put the US in a world of hurt really quickly, enough for them to pull a lot of their troops out of places that happen to be too close to Russia and China. Mexico isn't entirely happy with US policy, I'm sure they could be bribed into letting the other powers use their air and land space for a limited attack. The US won't use nukes to retaliate, which was the origin of this line of argument. If Russia, Chaina and the EU really wanted to, they could use conventional weapons and force the US to at least retreat from trying to rule the world. This supposes the US is trying to rule the world, which is not apparent -- at least not to the US. An attack on the US to stop it from trying to rule the world would be perceived as a plain and simple attack, and would provoke a corresponding response. If Russia bombs a US oil refinery with Mexican cooperation, the existing government in Mexico would wind up dead real fast, and some Russian ports would be in flames. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG baElAcTaVUiywf1LQXHkD3jjIL8tQmV8kXdn5eLe 4rHHMsZMLVskeVboCdgyhZ3sBET3r8d2Yi8x1eHS6
Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
If Russia, Chaina and the EU really wanted to, they could use conventional weapons and force the US to at least retreat from trying to rule the world. This supposes the US is trying to rule the world, which is not apparent -- at least not to the US. I am afraid it's more than just apparent. I personally am not exactly comfortable with the idea of a wannabe world ruler, especially with Bushites in charge. Forwarded message follows: - Subject: [gulfwar-2] FYI: the New American Century From: Ben McGinnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello, Some here may have already seen articles in various news papers and agencies about a U.S. think tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Specifically regarding a report drafted by that group which promotes the benefit to the world of American military supremacy. Most of the news articles only cite the original article by the Irish Sunday Herald: http://www.sundayherald.com/print27735 This article is dated September 15th, last year and is somewhat sparse in details of the report. Those interested in seeing the report, which given its origin and the who members of PNAC are, can obtain the PDF from the PNAC website: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf There is a HTML copy available here: http://cryptome.org/rad.htm It makes for very interesting reading, especially given the number of members of both the current and previous Bush Administrations involved with PNAC. Regards, Ben
Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Damian Gerow wrote: The list can go on and on. The US is *not* a popular country right now. Not only could I see Mexico turning a blind eye, but I can see a large part of the world taking the same stance. I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying. The US, I'd like to believe, isn't dumb enough to actually use its nuclear weapons, especially on its own continent. Move across the ocean, and I'm less sure of this, though. Like Harmon said, the world is already boycotting US production of food, it wouldn't take much to boycott everything. But if a few attacks here and there take place, I don't think anyone in the world is going to cry for the US. I'd rather see the Green party (and Russian) attempts at having George W. Bush indicted as a War Criminal for this attack on Iraq. Much more peaceful, delivers a much stronger message, and rids the guy of his power trip. I was just daydreaming about this whild doging cars on my bicycle this morning. It would be cool to see Bush in the Hague! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
After reading this, I feel like I missed something in my original post... Mike Rosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And then the whole world dies, because of ... what? Natural stupidity. grin Spot on. Which is why MAD works. But a regular bombing run on a few oil refineries would put the US in a world of hurt really quickly, enough for them to pull a lot of their troops out of places that happen to be too close to Russia and China. Mexico isn't entirely happy with US policy, I'm sure they could be bribed into letting the other powers use their air and land space for a limited attack. The US won't use nukes to retaliate, which was the origin of this line of argument. ... Mexico's not happy, Canadians are getting pissed because of threatened boycotts from American companies/PIRs, Europeans are pissed because America has threatened to boycott perfume and cheese (yes, this is mostly France, but they /are/ a part of the EU), Iraq is pissed because they just got invaded, Korea's pissed because the US is jerking them around ... The list can go on and on. The US is *not* a popular country right now. Not only could I see Mexico turning a blind eye, but I can see a large part of the world taking the same stance. I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying. The US, I'd like to believe, isn't dumb enough to actually use its nuclear weapons, especially on its own continent. Move across the ocean, and I'm less sure of this, though. If Russia, Chaina and the EU really wanted to, they could use conventional weapons and force the US to at least retreat from trying to rule the world. An attack on Syria and Saudi Arabia or Iran could provoke it. I'd rather see the Green party (and Russian) attempts at having George W. Bush indicted as a War Criminal for this attack on Iraq. Much more peaceful, delivers a much stronger message, and rids the guy of his power trip.
Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
--- Damian Gerow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And then the whole world dies, because of ... what? Seriously, I *highly* doubt that any nation at this time would *seriously* think of bombing another nuclear-enabled nation with a nuclear weapon. It's just suicide. Well-pakistan has been constantly nuclear black mailing india.They say that their nuclear options are always open and there is nothing india can do about it.When the hate grows logic doesn't work.Thats why one cannot do any thing about suicide bombing either.There are no winners in a nuclear war-thats certain.So the uneasy peace will prevail for a few more year.Things may change later. Sarath. 'a couple thousand nukes' later, there's not much left of this planet. That which hasn't been blowed [sic] up is exposed to enough radiation to kill, or to cause some serious mutations. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com
Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
Sarad AV [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seriously, I *highly* doubt that any nation at this time would *seriously* think of bombing another nuclear-enabled nation with a nuclear weapon. It's just suicide. Well-pakistan has been constantly nuclear black mailing india.They say that their nuclear options are always open and there is nothing india can do about it.When the hate grows logic doesn't work.Thats why one cannot do any thing about suicide bombing either.There are no winners in a nuclear war-thats certain.So the uneasy peace will prevail for a few more year.Things may change later. You're leaving out stupidity. I can only see two reasons for bombing with nuclear weapons: hate and stupidity. That being said, you'd have to *really* hate someone (or an entire country) to actually /use/ a nuclear weapon. Threatening is one thing. Doing is another.
Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Damian Gerow wrote: And then the whole world dies, because of ... what? Natural stupidity. Seriously, I *highly* doubt that any nation at this time would *seriously* think of bombing another nuclear-enabled nation with a nuclear weapon. It's just suicide. 'a couple thousand nukes' later, there's not much left of this planet. That which hasn't been blowed [sic] up is exposed to enough radiation to kill, or to cause some serious mutations. Which is why MAD works. But a regular bombing run on a few oil refineries would put the US in a world of hurt really quickly, enough for them to pull a lot of their troops out of places that happen to be too close to Russia and China. Mexico isn't entirely happy with US policy, I'm sure they could be bribed into letting the other powers use their air and land space for a limited attack. The US won't use nukes to retaliate, which was the origin of this line of argument. If Russia, Chaina and the EU really wanted to, they could use conventional weapons and force the US to at least retreat from trying to rule the world. An attack on Syria and Saudi Arabia or Iran could provoke it. I don't think it's very likely to happen, but if the US really tries to attack more countries with the same blatent lies they used on Iraq, I wouldn't be supprised either. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
Mike Rosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So when the rest of the world retaliates with all their military power that the US fails to appreciate, what strategic war plan does the rest of the world have for handling a couple thousand nukes? Just trying to figure their options? Russia, China and, France all have nukes and delivery capability. If the US wants to retaliate with nukes, they'll get nuked in return. MAD works. And then the whole world dies, because of ... what? Seriously, I *highly* doubt that any nation at this time would *seriously* think of bombing another nuclear-enabled nation with a nuclear weapon. It's just suicide. 'a couple thousand nukes' later, there's not much left of this planet. That which hasn't been blowed [sic] up is exposed to enough radiation to kill, or to cause some serious mutations.
Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
Mike Rosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not a router guru, maybe somebody can explain these results: $ dig 216.34.94.186 ; DiG 9.2.0 216.34.94.186 ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 2646 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;216.34.94.186. IN A ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: . 86400 IN SOA A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM. 2003032700 1800 900 604800 86400 ;; Query time: 113 msec ;; SERVER: 128.104.20.18#53(128.104.20.18) ;; WHEN: Wed Mar 26 23:19:48 2003 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 106 $ host 216.34.94.186 186.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa is an alias for 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer redirect.dnsix.com. How do I chase this thing down to who actually owns it? whois aljazeera.net? Registrant: Jazeera Space Channel TV station (ALJAZEERA2-DOM) P.O. Box 231234 Doha QA Domain Name: ALJAZEERA.NET Administrative Contact: AlaliAJ7476, MJ (HCSGDXPWTI) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Al Jazeera Space TV Station Po Box. 211234 Doha, QT 7476 QA +974 07 04 17761 +999 999 Technical Contact: VeriSign, Inc. (HOST-ORG)[EMAIL PROTECTED] VeriSign, Inc. 21355 Ridgetop Circle Dulles, VA 20166 US 1-888-642-9675 Record expires on 31-Aug-2010. Record created on 30-Aug-1996. Database last updated on 27-Mar-2003 14:33:52 EST. Domain servers in listed order: NS3.ALJAZEERA.NET213.30.180.218 ALJNS1SA.NAV-LINK.NET217.26.193.15 Do you want to look for the domain registrars, the people who own the nameservers, the people who own the netblocks the web site lives in, the people who own the netblocks the nameservers live in... ? It looks like, from below, the IP address is with dotster... Note I do get: $ host www.aljazeera.net www.aljazeera.net has address 216.34.94.186 So why the original error response if host can find it? Interesting! Because 'host' is doing magic that 'dig' presumes you don't want done. Try this instead of your dig command above: % dig -x 216.34.94.186 ; DiG 8.3 216.34.94.186 ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 2 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; 216.34.94.186, type = A, class = IN ;; Total query time: 97 msec ;; FROM: removed to SERVER: default -- removed ;; WHEN: Thu Mar 27 14:34:42 2003 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 31 rcvd: 31 % dig -x 216.34.94.186 ; DiG 8.3 -x ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 2 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 4, ADDITIONAL: 4 ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; 186.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa, type = ANY, class = IN ;; ANSWER SECTION: 186.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. 1D IN CNAME 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. 1H IN NS dns02.exodus.net. 94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. 1H IN NS dns03.exodus.net. 94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. 1H IN NS dns04.exodus.net. 94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. 1H IN NS dns01.exodus.net. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: dns02.exodus.net. 21H IN A209.1.222.245 dns03.exodus.net. 21H IN A209.1.222.246 dns04.exodus.net. 21H IN A209.1.222.247 dns01.exodus.net. 21H IN A209.1.222.244 ;; Total query time: 236 msec ;; FROM: removed to SERVER: default -- removed ;; WHEN: Thu Mar 27 14:34:45 2003 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 44 rcvd: 249 (Remember, 216.34.94.186 when doing DNS lookups is actually 186.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa...) So we take a look at that CNAME... % dig any 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. ; DiG 8.3 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. any ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 2 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2 ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa, type = ANY, class = IN ;; ANSWER SECTION: 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. 23h57m3s IN PTR redirect.dnsix.com. ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. 1d9h19m32s IN NS ns1.dotster.com. 160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. 1d9h19m32s IN NS ns2.dotster.com. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ns1.dotster.com.23h44m IN A 64.94.117.199 ns2.dotster.com.23h44m IN A 63.251.83.78 ;; Total query time: 1 msec ;; FROM: removed to SERVER: default -- removed ;; WHEN: Thu Mar 27 14:47:36 2003 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 51 rcvd: 159 And voila! We have what looks like a dnsix.com IP
