Battlefield Medkits Improve 314
ApharmdB writes "CNN has an article on the US military's fielding of a bandage containing clotting agents that can stop blood flow within two minutes. Obviously, the hope is that they will save a lot of lives. What's next straight from your favorite FPS? Who has an estimate on how long it will take for the Army to outfit its troops with anti-personnel rocket launchers?" Those have been around for quite a while.
Rocket jumping! (Score:5, Funny)
This... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if there are any allergies associated with it, or if you have to use a patch that corresponds to your blood type...
future weapons (Score:2, Funny)
Re:future weapons (Score:5, Interesting)
They just can't get the thing down to a portable size, nor figure out how to supply it with the jiggawatts(TM) of juice it needs to fire.
But they do exist.
Re:future weapons (Score:3, Informative)
Re:future weapons (Score:2, Informative)
Re:future weapons (Score:2, Funny)
Railgun physics... (Score:3, Informative)
Consider portability - you fire a small piece of steel at several thousand kph... the recoil is going to blow off your own arm. Every reaction and whatnot...
From Movie Physics in the Classroom [intuitor.com]:
As Lee observes, "...they said the physics [of the rail gun] were impossible", and we're inclined to heartily agree. The first problem is a nasty little law of physics called conservation of momentum. Briefly, this states that the forward momentum of the bullet must be counteracted by the backward momentum of the gun. The magnitude of an object's momentum is equal to its mass times the magnitude of its velocity, as expressed by the following equation:
p = mv
We know that the bullet is travelling close to the speed of light (3 × 108 m/s). To be conservative, we will assume the bullet travels at only half the speed of light, and that its mass is about the mass of a paper clip (0.0005 kg). For the sake of simplicity, we will ignore the effects of relativity, which would cause the bullet's mass to be even greater. Thus, we calculate the bullet's momentum:
pbullet = (0.0005 kg)(½)(3 × 108 m/s) = 7.5 × 104 Ns
If we assume the mass of the rifle is 10 kg, its backward velocity must be 7.5 × 104 Ns divided by 10 kg, which equals 7500 m/s. Compared to the velocity of a .45 cal bullet going a sedate 330 m/s, our rail gun would be a mite difficult to hold.
Okay, so the gun has a little kickback; so what? Well, let's look at the bullet's kinetic energy, calculated from the equation:
KE = ½mv2
Hence, the kinetic energy of the bullet would be:
KEbullet = (½)(0.0005 kg)(1.5 × 108 m/s)2 = 5.625 × 1012 J
The impact of our bullet would be like blowing up over 1000 tons of TNT. Needless to say this would take out a little more than just Vanessa Williams.
-T
Re:future weapons (Score:2, Interesting)
If you're talking Quake 2 or 3 I own with it!
Re:kings island has one (Score:2)
It's more of a linear motor, which would be a Gauss-Gun.
A Gauss gun is a more elegant design, but harder to implement.
I'm more concerned with the problem of (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm more concerned with the problem of (Score:2)
Obviously.
I could have used one of these (Score:2, Funny)
The time I got hit by a car on my motorcycle.
Owww!
EMT's should be given these, they could save lots of lives.
Now, my girlfriend at her time in the month...I'm sure she'd like these too! Our sheets thank you.
Re:I could have used one of these (Score:2)
Re:I could have used one of these (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.traumadex.com/
I wonder if... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I wonder if... (Score:2)
Good idea! I'd keep some used ones around for those full moon nights when I feel like a cup o' tea!
Re:I wonder if... (Score:5, Informative)
For more info, I'll simply refer the reader to any physiology textbook. For info on what happens if you do too good a job at preventing nature from taking its course, look up toxic shock syndrome.
Re:I wonder if... (Score:2)
The whole idea behind "the period" is to get rid of unnecessary material so the cycle can start again
Ohhhh... I thought it was so I could earn my red wings [chudstories.com].
Re:I wonder if... (Score:4, Funny)
Or tell them to get a girlfriend, and have them learn to go and buy tampons or pads for her. Real life experience can't be beat, ya know.
*shakes her head and sighs*
That is a anti-tank weapon. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That is a anti-tank weapon. (Score:3, Interesting)
speaking of splitting hairs... the spec sheet does imply human targets with the "1x2 Meter Target" spec which incidentally 250m for a rocket launcher hitting a human is not too shabby...
Re:That is a anti-tank weapon. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:That is a anti-tank weapon. (Score:5, Informative)
You can use them on materiel, like bunkers, tanks, buildings, clothing. The Geneva convention doesn't specifically rule out the use of rocket propelled weaponry against clothing that is currently occupied either.
So, as long as you don't hit the skin, you're fine.
This is a military myth (Score:5, Informative)
A Capt of Marines recently told me that the
This was purely to save ammo in one instance. Not due to any international law.
Also, in the Hague convention is where you'd find anything close to regulating ammo used on combatants. Such as "weapons that cause unneeded suffering" such as "exploding bullets."
You've probably seen movies where they use rockets to clear out bunkers. What's the difference in bombing a bunker with an A-10 and firing a rocket in it? Does this make any sense to regulate the use of rockets on personal?
I'd also like to mention that I'd like snopes.com to investigate this
Re:That is a anti-tank weapon. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:That is a anti-tank weapon. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That is a anti-tank weapon. (Score:2)
More like only in the context of war.
The weird thing about the Geneva convention is that weapons that are considered illegal for your soldiers to use against soldiers of another country, are sometimes considered quite legal for use against civilians of your own country (where the Geneva Convention doesn't apply). Police use of hollow point bullets are an example.
Urban (Military) Myth (Score:3, Informative)
Reason is, as i understand it: (Score:2)
If you blind/cripple 50,000 soilders, they need to provide care to theose prople for the rest of their lives and it will probaly cripple the whole country for a couple of generations. Look at what were facing with social security and the boomer bubble. Picture that goin on, along with supporting all the casualtys from WW2 for the last 50 years if they had been blinded instead of killed.
Re:It has more to do with being humane than econom (Score:3, Interesting)
There's no problem with wounding people.
In fact the M-16 was designed specifically with wounding in mind. The .203 caliber bullet is smaller and lighter than the .30 caliber bullets used in previous U.S. military rifles, and the primary reason is because it's more likely to wound rather than to kill. Not to avoid killing, but because if you wound one soldier, you generally take two soldiers out of action -- the one that got hit and the buddy that has to care for him and drag him to safety.
Spin (Score:2, Funny)
Spin, little medkit, spin!
graspee
I know what you mean (Score:2)
On top of that, they're hiring all sorts of assholes like that new guy Gordon...
Tim
Antipersonnel (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't really need more anti-personnel equipment
War nowadays is more about accuretley knocking out specific enemy targets. Communications and flight and aircraft and the like
Not just killing everybody
America had developed small antipersonnel nukes during the cold war. These are well known of, but they don't see the light of day
Some things are better left unbuilt.
Re:Antipersonnel (Score:2)
Re:Antipersonnel (Score:2)
Indeed.
Landwarrior (Score:2)
Re:Antipersonnel (Score:2)
Re:Antipersonnel (Score:2)
Also, the Geneva convention, AFAIK, only applies to wars between signatories. Also, in case you haven't noticed, only the losers of a war get tried for war crimes. The US doesn't lose Wars. (Anymore. yeah, yeah, Canadains burned DC almost two centuries ago....)
Re:Antipersonnel (Score:2)
Actually, the apparant exemption is "only folks with nukes and UN veto powers" don't get tried for war crimes--though the court should (theoretically) change that.
The US doesn't lose Wars. (Anymore. yeah, yeah, Canadains burned DC almost two centuries ago....)
1: It wasn't the Canadians, it was the army of the British Empire.
2: The War of 1812 was one of the wars that we shouldn't have started, and so, not surprising, we didn't win.
3: We lost the Vietnam War--er, the "rebellion of French Indochina, wherein the French lost any hope of redemption in the American conciousness."
Re:Antipersonnel (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Antipersonnel (Score:2)
There was neat article about F-15E pilots and their laser-pointer friends on the ground in a recent issue of Atlantic Monthly. Well, neat except for glorifying war.
Re:Antipersonnel (Score:3, Informative)
Obvious troll, but I'll bite. The army developed a special type of thermonuclear bomb during the cold war called the neutron bomb. This bomb has had a lot of bad press but it really isn't as bad as some of the alternatives (napalm, carpet bombing, regular nukes)
These neutron bombs were intended to take out invading troops. They emitted lots of beta radiation, but they didn't have a huge blast and didn't leave much lasting radioactivity. Say, for example, if the Soviets invaded W. Germany during the cold war, we could detonate a neutron bomb over the invading troops. They would be killed by the intense amount of beta radiation from the bomb. All of the trees, grass, and most living things in the vicinity would die. However, hopefully the civilians would be protected, if they were in a fallout shelter or bunker. Due to the small blast, their buildings would remain intact.
There are other examples of anti personel bombs as well.
Today we teach /. editors "personnel" vs "armor" (Score:2, Insightful)
Quake and cousins would be so much more boring if you could only use the rocket launcher against enemy vehicles -- there are a lot fewer of those than enemy troops :)
Closer than you think... (Score:5, Informative)
About those anti-personel rocket launchers, we're closer than you may think. The OICW [atk.com] (the next-generation combat weapon being tested for deployment throughout the armed services) includes a computer-aimed grenade launcher which is smart enough to compute a perfect air-burst over a designated target, and which can handle a range of ammunition types.
Re:Closer than you think... (Score:2)
It's not a nade lancher AFAIK. It's 20mm HE shell which has a programable fuse. Distances is acquired via laser range finder. The intent is to allow a squad to kill around corners, behind fox-hole, through walls and lightly armored targets, as well as over the top of hills (range to top...shoot above it -- targets on top get unpleasant surprise).
The REALLY cool thing is, it sorta looks like something like one of the Aliens movies. Very futuristic indeed.
Re:Closer than you think... (Score:2)
AFAIK, all grenade launchers are actually shells, designed for indirect fire. (To not be, it would have to either use a seperate launch mechanism (a spring or some such), or be like the WWII-era rifle grenades.
This is a particularly nice implementation, though, yes. :-) For more on it, see
here [fas.org].
next thing we need (Score:2)
Re:next thing we need (Score:2)
-ajb
Michael misread (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Michael misread (Score:3, Funny)
I already beat them up and took their milk-money.
Redundant FPS jokes (Score:2)
And medkits that can "scale" from healing a minor bruise with one of them to healing multiple gunshot wounds if you have 6 or 7.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of medkits?
How about (almost) shoulder launched nukes? (Score:5, Informative)
The Davy Crockett [brook.edu]
If you work out, you might be able to carry one on each shoulder!
Re:How about (almost) shoulder launched nukes? (Score:2)
Can you really be that inaccurate with a short range NUCLEAR WEAPON!?!?
Re:How about (almost) shoulder launched nukes? (Score:2)
Don't get the wrong idea about these guys. Actual explosive yield of the weapon is on the order of 20 tons-- not kilotons, tons. That's a big boom, but not one so big that you don't have to aim.
If I recall, they used a munition of about the same size in the SADM. I forget what the acronym stands for-- something like Special Atomic Demolition Munition-- but it was basically an atomic fission land mine. Probably would have been very effective if Russian tanks had ever come plowing through the Fulda Gap. Fortunately we never got to find out for sure.
Re:How about (almost) shoulder launched nukes? (Score:2)
The American army rumbles up... stops a couple of miles away. They seem to be fiddling around with something... after a couple of minutes, they ATTACK!
-plink- A single 37mm shell lands on one of your tanks, bounces and rolls into a ditch.
You and your comrades laugh at the sheer impotency of the attack. You crawl out of your bunkers and tanks, and mock the enemy for such a feeble effort.
But they seem to be fiddling with something ELSE now...
Re:How about (almost) shoulder launched nukes? (Score:2)
I don't think it was ever deployed.
Re:How about (almost) shoulder launched nukes? (Score:2)
I don't think it was ever deployed.
:)
Well, it sure wasn't deployed by the same personnel more than once
Cut Stop Powder (Score:4, Interesting)
Doesn't the military already use a powder that helps clot blood much faster than normal? Similar to the cut stop powder that farmers and ranchers use for animals? Or is this a product that they used to use?
Are there any former/current medics than can shed some light on this?
It's interesting that the new clotting agent permeates a bandage, though.
Re:Cut Stop Powder (Score:5, Insightful)
Some userful things never get approved by the FDA for "NIH" (Not Invented Here) reasons. When I was stationed in England, we worked with the British hospitals a lot, and they had some cool epoxy-like bandaging stuff -- basically, you'd pour it into thw wound, and it would form perfectly to the shape of the wound, and then get slowly absorbed by the patient's body as the wound healed. Now, British medicine is just as good as US; I see no reason why we couldn't have trusted the stuff for our patients. But we couldn't use it because it hadn't been approved by the FDA yet -- and since that was over ten years ago, I suppose it probably never has been or will be.
Re:Cut Stop Powder (Score:2)
I grow up in a small warehouse in Hong Kong. When I was a kid, I felt so sleepy one day and crashed my head into the sharp edge of construction material when crawling to my makeshift bed. The cut bled like hell.
At that time (late 70's) many household stored a powder can "Yunam White" manufactured by China, which claimed to be a very effective blood clotting powder and proven to work well in Vietnam War (well, for the other side). It really worked. I saw a tv documentary that showed how it stopped bleeding on an animal within about 2 mins... But, the nurses in ER really hated that. She kept on swearing when cleaning up my wound. That powder is not soluble in anything and must be cleaned before stitching.... Maybe, that's the reason it got banned
It is a bit dumb IMO... I would rather suffer in the hospital then bleed to death on the way to it...
How barbaric (Score:5, Funny)
What I want is... (Score:5, Funny)
What I want is an orange suit [half-life.com] that dispenses morphine whenever I take damage and lets me run around with a broken leg.
"Whaddaya mean you stapled yourself 127 times?!"
anti-personnel rocket launcher (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called an M203, law, vlaw, and rpg.
What happened to the good ol' days? (Score:2)
For those not in the army, we can enjoy that same tech [coachdepot.com] today.
topostat (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is this apparently a lost technology? I couldn't even find mention of it in a google search.
Re:topostat (Score:3, Funny)
They discovered that it causes impotence, hair loss, and many of the canisters were contaminated with herpes.
Re:topostat (Score:2, Informative)
When I first got cancer in 1980 they applied paper tape to my back after a bone marrow asperation.
A couple hours later it was time for a spinal tap and they needed to remove the bandage. Well I learned that day I was allergic to paper tape adhesive. It pulled my skin off with the tape so I was sent home with 3 cans of Topostat to help stave off infection (I had ALL and a depressed imune system.)
Neat damn stuff, had cans of it around for about 2 years then all of a sudden we couldn't get any from out doctors.
It really helped out on the farm, one of the farm hands lost a finger tip in some machinery and started to bleed bad, the spray came in handy.
Re:topostat (Score:5, Insightful)
"When I first got cancer in 1980 they applied paper tape to my back after a bone marrow asperation."
says more to me about the advance in modern medicine then the original post.
Congratulation.
Re:topostat (Score:2)
Re:topostat (Score:2)
Take this with a grain of salt, I'm just guessing.
Well, you are just guessing. I don't think the can I got was all that expensive, just a few dollars at the time. But more importantly, if the stuff was or is still available, then why would a bandage with a clotting agent in it be such a big deal? The spray on clotting agent has much greater use in emergency, there certainly are situations where the bandage pictured (or even a somewhat larger one) would not do the job, but a spray on clotting agent would. So maybe there is some reason why I can't buy it off the shelf at Walgreens, but that hardly explains why CNN is making a fuss over a lesser technology, or why I can't even find references to Topostat in a google search (all hits point to mapmaking, not a medical agent). This is certainly something the army and EMS people should have access to, even if Walgreens doesn't want to let me use it to save my own life.
The question remains, why is this a lost technology?
Re:topostat (Score:2)
BFGs (Score:4, Interesting)
OICW - Entering service late this decade [hkpro.com] You can chain fire grenades, set them to explode on impact, just after impact (for penetrating windows) or at a set distance (for exploding over people's heads).
Alternatively, if you want a BIG F***ING GUN, nothing says I love you quite like a GMG (Grenade Machine Gun) [hkpro.com] - yeah, that's right, a Grenade MG - 40mmx53 grenades, 350 cyclic rate. If I remember rightly, it comes with an optional nightsight (Oh so useful if 350 grenades a minute don't light the target up enough for you)
Re:BFGs (Score:2, Informative)
What about ProKits? (Score:2)
BFG (Score:3, Informative)
Take a look at the CRUSADER 155MM SELF PROPELLED HOWITZER [army-technology.com]
No Frag Limit.
Battlefield medicine has done a lot (Score:5, Interesting)
Blood plasma comes to mind. Way back some army docs realized that if you lose a huge amount of blood, you're more likely to die of shock simply because your heart has nothing to pump around.
They realized you can use a centrifuge to take out all the red blood cells, dehydrate what's left, and all you need to do is add distilled water and get it into the body of an exsanguinated soldier. Just the fact that theres some fluid in the system for the heart to pump is enough to keep you alive until you can replace the red blood cells, and other gook in there..
It works regardless of blood type, takes less space, and doesn't require refrigeration (keeps longer).
Science has long been at it's best when its at war. Make of that what you will, but it's always been so.
Re:Battlefield medicine has done a lot (Score:2)
User friendliness (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:User friendliness (Score:2)
Since the military rightly uses a buddy system where no soldier is ever deployed without one partner, plus the larger squad and platoon teams of which the buddy teams are a part, it's only sensible to plan on having at least one other soldier available to apply the bandage (and all the other immediate first aid). This is how they're trained (and not just for first aid, either), and it's a good system. It reinforces teamwork, and helps to ensure small-unit cohesion; both valuable commodities on the battlefield.
Obviously, special troops with special missions might be exempt from the universal buddy-system rule, and fielding small numbers of special variants on the standard equipment probably is feasible (and probably already happens).
Hope we get the GPS effect (Score:3, Insightful)
Bandage Tech (crabshells) (Score:5, Informative)
The anti-hemorrhagic bandage was developed by Dr. Kenton Gregory at the Oregon Medical Laser Center [providence.org], and there is much more material about it at the website of the company formed to commercialize the technology, HemCon [hemcon.com].
The secret to the patch is a particular formulation of chitin, which is to stay, crabshells. The pro-clotting properties of chitin have been well-known for some time, but Dr. Gregory and his researchers were able to figure out how to make a viable bandage out of it, which hadn't been done before.
The OMLC is working on lots of other cool stuff as well, such as laser suturing (very good for your liver, which won't take thread sutures).
Full disclosure: I'm on their Board of Directors.
gnetwerker
When can I get... (Score:3, Funny)
Geez... (Score:3, Funny)
Where's the Quad Damage and the Redeemer?
Re:Geez... (Score:2)
Where's the Quad Damage and the Redeemer?
I think the redeemer [boeing.com] is covered too...
Let's get all the trolling out of the way... (Score:2)
Of course, bandages will only be available for soldiers. Will somebody think of the (children) collateral damage?
By the way, In Soviet Russia, hemorrages bandage YOU!
Of course, 1.Create clotting bandages. 2. ??? 3. Profit! (Where 2==sell to the US military at outrageously inflated prices).
And, oh, yeah, the bandages arrived too late for BSD. Because it is already, well, you know...
AP rockets? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? In real life, assult rifles hurt a lot more than they do in some popular FPSs (Half-Life comes to mind).
Besides, FPSs have the advantage of the Incredible Shrinking Ammo, the ability to carry dozens of reloads for that rocket launcher with no detrimental effects.
Oh, and then there's the ability to fire (accurately!) what is essentially a support weapon while walking/running/jumping. And people/objects behind you don't need to worry about backwash...
A new mission for the CIA (Score:4, Funny)
Cocaine Flakes (Score:2, Funny)
The real question is... (Score:2)
M-72 LAW (Light Anti-tank Weapon) (Score:2)
Pretty easy to work. Hmmm, it's been a while since I've seen one.. I think it went:
ya, and I know someone will add "??? -- Profit" No easy profit here. Once you blow up the enemy, it's kinda hard to go through the remains of his pockets, assuming you can find them.
BTW, LAWs are for anti-tank and bunker use.. They'll go through 1 foot of armour. It'd make a pretty serious mess against a person too..
Re:That's an Anti-Armor/Tank rocket launcher (Score:3, Informative)
Won't need any bandages for the recipient, either.
Re:That's an Anti-Armor/Tank rocket launcher (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That's an Anti-Armor/Tank rocket launcher (Score:2)
I could write "I think macs are faster than pcs" and any mac fan with mod points will mod the comment up as informative (I saw this happen recently).
Re:CNN loves war... (Score:2)
Re:CNN loves war... (Score:2)
if they are moticated by the government "Don't run this or you will lose you liscense", then it is censorship.
Re:Pentagon PR Distraction (Score:2, Interesting)
This morning a kid I knew growing up AIM'ed to say he was shipping out. He is a Marine Sniper-scout so you can imagine he's not that shocked about being sent off to war. I asked if his rifle was sighted in and he responded with a "Hell yea and I hope I get to go hunting".
The oil interest arguement always makes me shake my head.
Iraq used to export lots of oil to the US, Iraq told the US over and over in the 90s that Iraq would sell the US oil at 2 dollars below market price. Iraq told the US it would cut special deals with US companies.
So what freaking sense is there to going to war for that oil? If it wa all about oil interests it would be cheaper and more responsable t let Iraq keep killing civilians and sell the west oil.
Think GM, Ford, Exxon-Mobil and Halliburton are excited about the prospect of oil hitting 60 dollars a barrel and cutting corporate income?
Show me this empire you speak of, are the Aghanis or Iraqis going to be paying the US taxes? Are we going to force our excess Crystal-meth into thier markets for some income? Are we going to make them change thier customs and language?
If you think the US is empire building, then you need to take a look at what happens when empires are built.
Re:Pentagon PR Distraction (Score:2)
Two points:
1) With the demise of an actual draft in this country, we have developed a poverty draft, where for many kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, the military seems to be the only viable career option, and a good way to pay for college. Obviously there are exceptions, but the military is disproportionaly black and working-class compared to society at large. There's a reason you see more recruiting stations in poor neighborhoods than wealthy ones.
2) So what? They volunteered, therefore our leaders shouldn't give a second thought to risking their lives?
Now, as for oil and empire:
Why does the United States care about Iraq?
Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) have nothing to do with it. Plenty of governments around the world possess WMDs (including nuclear weapons, which Iraq does not have) in flagrant violation of international law. Several of them, most notably Pakistan, receive the support of the United States. Hell, North Korea is openly posturing itself as an agressive nuclear power, and the administration hardly seems to care. Moreover, Saddam developed his WMD programs in the 1980s with the active support of the Reagan and Bush I administrations.
No, U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf has everything to do with oil. Nobody in the foreign policy establishment denies it. The world's richest supplies of oil are in the Persian Gulf, a region with a number of countries which are unfriendly to the United States. Hence, it is the stated policy of the U.S. government that we will take military action to defend our "interests" there (look up the Carter Doctrine of 1980 sometime if you don't believe me).
In the 1980s, that meant supporting Iraq in its war with Iran, supplying Saddam Hussein with billions of dollars worth of weapons, and looking the other way when he committed acts of genocide against Shi'ites and Kurds (just as the U.S. is looking the other way now while Turkey commits similar atrocities towards its Kurds).
At the end of the '80s, however, Iraq and Kuwait became involved in a dispute over oil prices (Kuwait, friendly to the U.S., was pumping more oil than Iraq and OPEC wanted it to, lowering prices, which hurt Iraq) and slant drilling. In 1990, Saddam made the mistake of invading Kuwait. Everyone knows the story from there.
Fast-forward to 2002, and we've got hawks like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and co. in the administration, and they're hopping mad that some of the world's most valuable oil fields are controlled by a government openly hostile to the United States. Saddam cutting deals with U.S. oil companies isn't a viable option, because he remains in power, becomes much wealthier, and continues to be a thorn in the U.S.'s side.
That's why an anonymous administration official was recently quoted in a news report as saying, "If you were trying to talk about Iraq and if you were not encumbered by the fear that your actions would be linked to ExxonMobil or the oil industry, you'd be talking about oil issues."
As for empire, the Bushies are speakly very openly about a decade-long military occupation, drawing comparisons with Japan. The idea will be to consolidate power (in what would otherwise become a very fractured country) in the hands of a government friendly to U.S. interests. There's also talk that Iran could be next, as part of a broader plan to "democratize" the Middle East (read: create regimes which pose no problems for continued American hegemony in the region).
I don't know about you, but I call that oil imperialism.
Re:Pentagon PR Distraction (Score:2)
Is it your contention that Saddam Hussein is more trustworthy or credible than Mr. Powell, Ms. Rice, President Bush, Tony Blair, the PMs of Italy, Portugal, etc.. and the President of the Czech Republic? (who was a dissident in the Soviet days, btw)
What would it take for you to support a invasion of Iraq?
Is war ever justifiable?
Is there anything worth putting American (or any) troops in harm's way?
Do you ever blame anything on any other country? Or is everything somehow America's fault?
Re:Pentagon PR Distraction (Score:2)