What else was it? As mentioned earlier the whole iraqi freedom thing came at the last minute, but the fuel was definitely WMDs.
The Us was in the longest recession post-war. People did not know if they would go to war or they would be attacked again. Uncertainty causes unstability in the markets.
Everyone knows what happens when you rally a nation toward a commen goal. Especially if you know it will be achieved. Consumers and people feel secure. So the markets are more stable.
This proved true.
I wonder if Bush can turn it around though, there is only so much spending during a war that is benificary. No capital is being built in the US. Inflation and taxes must pay for the war...
And the Iraqi Freedom movement was just a name. Iraq is/was the most liberal muslim nation in the middle east. ( I believe, 95% sure. )
In very simple terms, I supported the war because I think the world is better off without Saddam in power. Please tell me you can see some good things coming out of him not being in power. If you can't then I believe your mind is too closed to have a reasonable discussion with.
I can accept that our government made mistakes. I can accept things possibly should've been done a different way. But I can't accept that the world would be better off with a man like Saddam in power.
There are many reasons why Saddam should not be in power. I'm certain you can come up with some. Whether you agree with the method for removing him is a different argument.
There are pretty much two questions that need to be asked about events in the world: How should things be? And if they aren't that way, how do you make them so?
Iraq shouldn't have Saddam in power. Now, how do you make that happen? It applies to world hunger. Human rights abuses. Diseases.
BTW, I look at the UN and US as two separte entities because if they were one, then the UN would be going to war when the US said they were. They didn't, the US did, so I view that as two discrete entities that made they're independent decisions.
I have to go. Nice talking with you.
US shouldn't have Bush in power... ho do you make it happen?
:-)
It shouldn't be up to a nation to decide fate of the other.
It is a mess, and I think our government screwed up in the aftermath. We're great at starting wars and winning them, but the cleanup afterwards, we need some serious tutoring. Also, though, I believe that it will take time for things to truly get better. It's not an overnight thing. Now, if a couple of years from now in Iraq we are where we are today, then I'm going to be really disappointed in our government. This is one area I believe a Democratic president would do much better than bush and so I hope Clark wins in 2004.
I'm still rather disappointed about the slow progress in Afghanistan, but given the derelict conditions of the entire nation, I expect those problems to take longer to fix. Again, I believe a democratic president would do more for Afghanistan than Bush is.
US shouldn't have Bush in power... ho do you make it happen?
:-)
It shouldn't be up to a nation to decide fate of the other.
Anyway, take care.
Hopefully, we'll make it happen by voting him out of office next year.
Anyway, I'll summarize why I think we went to war, and it includes "money", though only as a side effect (not from the short term contracts with Halliburton or Big Oil, either). Also, I'm sure many people will have there opinions, have artciles to counter my thoughts, etc., but I propose this because I believe the issue is more complicated than just saying we went to war because of WMD, or Terrorism, or Oil, or Money, or "your input". Because I'm growing weary of the Iraq and Israel/Palestinian threads, hopefully this will be my last post in this thread, which is why I'm summarizing my thoughts, so all the people I've been discussing this with will know where my reasoning comes from.
Here goes...I'll probably leave out a few things on accident but the jist is there...
There are two main thorns in the side of Middle East peace: Saddam Hussein and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (the big one). Since this thread is discussing Iraq I'll focusing on that aspect alone.
Before the war...Saddam and his cronies were in power, sanctions were on Iraq and didn't look as if they were ever going to be lifted because of the uncertainty surrounding WMD, fellow Mid East governments didn't like Saddam, most of his own people didn't like Saddam, most Arabs didn't like what Saddam did to his own people but they liked him because he was defiant with the US and UN, and Saddam gave an incentive for Palestinian suicide bombers to do their thing with the $25,000 he gave their families (though it's a very small incentive, it still exists). Even bin Laden didn't like Saddam. Also, having forces in Saudi Arabia was a recruiting factor for Al Qaeda (yes, I know we still have about 400 or so there)
By removing Saddam from power, it makes most Iraqis happy (though because the US has squandered the good will, they also are starting to dislike us), it makes other Arab governments feel less threatened, and it cuts off that tiny incentive for the Palestinian suicide bombers. It also allows inspectors to verify, after 12 years, that Saddam doesn't have WMD, let's the sanctions be lifted, and allows us to remove our forward base in Saudi Arabia.
If Bush's dream is realized and a democratic government is set up and an open economy is created, (remember, before the sanctions were imposed, Iraq had one of the more civilized societies in the region) then the US will have another ally in the region, the government will be strong, and the Iraqi's will have a higher standard of living. The US will also have a military presence in the heart of the Middle East that allows it to influence the governments around, particulary on terrorism.
Having the open market will, in the future, allow US companies to open shop there. This, I believe, is where the money factor will come from with this war. Not from the short term contracts with oil companies, and network companies, but with the long term investment of being able to have businesses inside Iraq, which may be able to spread into other Middle East nations. By having an open market and a democratic government, it'll create a much stronger government than any other one in that region that will be friendly towards it's neighbors and not hostile towards them. This will help with stability in the region.
This influence, may spread to other countries. If it does, then that furthers the stability in the region. Also, it will give people something more to live for than just thinking everyday how much they hate the US and Israel.
Why is it that Americans and Europeans aren't blowing themselves up anytime they get angry about something? It's because there's too much to lose. Perhaps you have a wife, a kid, a great job? A lot of people in the Middle East don't have those things, so they kling to a cause they can contribute to and fight for. If we can help improve their economies and create an incentive to go to school and be educated and get a job rather than sit around think how much they hate us, then we start eliminating some of the causes of terrorism. Iraq is the best and easiest place to start such a system. Nobody would go for the US going into Saudi Arabia and setting up a system like that.
Another reason why I believe Bush wanted to go to war was because during the Clinton years (though not his fault) he gave an image to the world that the US was a coward when it came to fighting. Somalies celebrated once a year the day the defeated the US when they killed 8 of our service members (despite they lost 1000s). Terrorist attacks happened and we asked the countries to arrest the fellows who did them. We fight the serbs from 30,000 ft. in the air because we don't want to loose any lives. After 9/11 and shortly after attacking Afghanistan, I remember reading that the running joke in the Middle East was all the US would do is sue. That's not a good image to have for any country. Why do you think going to war with Iraq was such an easy decision to make? The cost of lives would be relatively low for all the benefits that would come out. Iraq couldn't defend themselves. However, in other countries like the Congo, the cost of lives would be too high for any paultry benefit. Just the opposite. You need to have an image of power and strength to prevent others from attacking you. You must make people believe that the cost of going to war against someone will be too costly for whatever benefits that may exist. Iraq doesn't have that image, so decding to fight them makes it an easy decision.
In order to reestablish our image of being a "fighting force" I believe that our government knew this would be a good opportunity to remind the world, particulary, the Middle East, to not muck with us or else we'll come after you. This allowed us to set up a strong force in the heart of the Middle East that could be used as a reminder of our power and used to influence the policies of the surrounding nations.
I don't remember what all I wrote, but to summarize...
Removing Saddam, if done correctly, will allow a strong, wealthy government to be established in the Middle East, which would hopefully spread to the surrounding nations creating a stability in the region. It will also remind the world that we can still fight, and are willing to go it alone if necessary.
I'm tired of typing, and I'm sure there are still many questions, but that is the jist as to why I believe Bush was so set on going to war. I'm sure you can find holes in my thoughts, articles to contradict my beliefs (I'll read them and think about them). I probably left out something because I just jotted down the first thoughts off my head, but I'm tired of posting in the Iraq/Israeli threads, so I probably won't respond to any comments. Rip my thoughts away, or comment on them. I'll read.
P.S.
The reason I believe our government wants to control the oil in Iraq is not for financial gain, but because it currently is the only life-blood for the future of Iraq, it allows us to have a chokehold on any potential decisions the future government of Iraq. That is, if the Shia's decide to impose Sharia law throughout the country, we can say, "Uh uh" or you won't get your oil. It's a bargaining chip to ensure that the government does what's right for it's people.
Apparently the GSM is too french and outdated compared to CDMA.
It would be funny if it wasn´t so sad.
Iraqis would choose GSM
Senator Issa, who happens to have Qualcomm (owners of CDMA IP) on his patch, issued a briefing note saying that Congress should insist that GSM should not be used as it would "benefit Northern European Countries" ... after all, it stood for
Quote:
"Groupe Speciale Mobile" - this standard was developed by the French
... of course it ACTUALLY stands for 'Global System for Mobile.'
He lied.
There was an uproar about the contents of his briefing note and he reissued it with, "Parlez-vous mobile?" as a big banner in order to insinuate it was a French technology, when it just isn't.
A CLASSIC example of how US corporates are using the war to further themselves at the expense of the Iraqi citizen.
Anyway, the US Government chose a different way to promote US interests here at the expense of the Europeans and Middle East in the end ... issuing a directive that only companies with less then 5% government ownership could apply to run a network in Iraq. France Telecom is therefore excluded, as are almost all companies in the area (including Vodafone that operates in partnership with local operators in the region, many of whom a government owned). Most of the best suited companies.
This decision was not made by Iraqis.
A US company / companies WILL operate Iraq's mobile network, although it may yet be GSM. Pity Afghanistan though where there wasn't even a process ... the US just awarded a US company the right to run a CDMA network ...
... of course it ACTUALLY stands for 'Global System for Mobile.'
He lied.
Ummm...No, he didn't lie.
"During the early 1980s, analog cellular telephone systems were experiencing rapid growth in Europe, particularly in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom, but also in France and Germany._ Each country developed its own system, which was incompatible with everyone else's in equipment and operation._ This was an undesirable situation, because not only was the mobile equipment limited to operation within national boundaries, which in a unified Europe were increasingly unimportant, but there was a very limited market for each type of equipment, so economies of scale, and the subsequent savings, could not be realized.
The Europeans realized this early on, and in 1982 the Conference of European Posts and Telegraphs (CEPT) formed a study group called the Groupe Spécial Mobile (GSM) to study and develop a panEuropean public land mobile system."
"September - 13 operators and administrators from 12 areas in the CEPT GSM advisory group sign the charter GSM (Groupe Spéciale Mobile) MoU "Club" agreement, with a launch date of 1 July 1991.
The original French name was later changed to Global System for Mobile Communications, but the original GSM acronym stuck."
GSM as the system is short for Global System for Mobile telecommunications and not Group Special Mobile as Issa claims here.
Quote:
We have learned that planners at the Department of Defense and USAID are currently envisioning using Federal appropriations to deploy a European-based wireless technology known as GSM (Groupe Speciale Mobile) for this new Iraqi cell phone system.
Group Special Mobile was, as your link shows, a collection of people who made the first draft of the GSM system.
Issa clearly talks aboput the system and not the group. TYherefore he talks about Global System for Mobile, which he choose to give another name.
GSM as the system is short for Global System for Mobile telecommunications and not Group Special Mobile as Issa claims here.
Group Special Mobile was, as your link shows, a collection of people who made the first draft of the GSM system.
Issa clearly talks aboput the system and not the group. TYherefore he talks about Global System for Mobile, which he choose to give another name.
With due respect, my link shows that the name was changed to "Global System for Mobile Communications" and that the name was changed (from another link I could post) only because the US adopted the GSM system, which originally stood for "Group Special Mobile". Prior to US adoption the system was known worldwide as Group Speciale Mobile.
In respect to Global System for Mobile Communications, GSM is an inaccurate and incomplete acronym simply because the C for Communications is left out. So he is still technically correct in saying that it stands for Group Speciale Mobile, becuase that is what it is commonly understood to stand for.
The technicality is similar to the acronym DVD. It originally stood for Digital Versatile Disk and technically still does, but because Video was the popular format for DVD, it has adopted the de facto name as Digital Video Disk. Akin to a name change that GSM underwent.
Regardless, it's utterly stupid to say someone is lying because they use an original acronym for something, and it just goes to show that some people on these boards are really stretching to try and find things the administration is "lying" about. If they lie, then fine, say they're lying, but don't try and take something as trivial as a minor change in an acronym to point fingers and say, "Hey, those bastards are lying again."
Because it wouldn't be by the choice of the Iraqis.
Ah, I can respect that, but is there anything from a technilogical standpoint that you are opposed? I'm interested because I understand that there is a rather heated debate between the two technologies in the industry. Primarily, GSM is a tried and true technology that is reliable and CDMA is a newer technology but offers certain technilogical advantages over GSM.
Ah, I can respect that, but is there anything from a technilogical standpoint that you are opposed?
I can't vouch for one over the other, but I believe every country within 1000 kilometers is using GSM. Certainly any neighboring countries. To create an incompatibility like this is bad business for Iraq.
I can't vouch for one over the other, but I believe every country within 1000 kilometers is using GSM. Certainly any neighboring countries. To create an incompatibility like this is bad business for Iraq.
Bush NEVER said the threat was imminent. What he said was the precise opposite. This is from the State of the Union last January:
Quote:
... Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?
If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option...
Comments
What else was it? As mentioned earlier the whole iraqi freedom thing came at the last minute, but the fuel was definitely WMDs.
The Us was in the longest recession post-war. People did not know if they would go to war or they would be attacked again. Uncertainty causes unstability in the markets.
Everyone knows what happens when you rally a nation toward a commen goal. Especially if you know it will be achieved. Consumers and people feel secure. So the markets are more stable.
This proved true.
I wonder if Bush can turn it around though, there is only so much spending during a war that is benificary. No capital is being built in the US. Inflation and taxes must pay for the war...
And the Iraqi Freedom movement was just a name. Iraq is/was the most liberal muslim nation in the middle east. ( I believe, 95% sure. )
Originally posted by X X
In very simple terms, I supported the war because I think the world is better off without Saddam in power. Please tell me you can see some good things coming out of him not being in power. If you can't then I believe your mind is too closed to have a reasonable discussion with.
I can accept that our government made mistakes. I can accept things possibly should've been done a different way. But I can't accept that the world would be better off with a man like Saddam in power.
There are many reasons why Saddam should not be in power. I'm certain you can come up with some. Whether you agree with the method for removing him is a different argument.
There are pretty much two questions that need to be asked about events in the world: How should things be? And if they aren't that way, how do you make them so?
Iraq shouldn't have Saddam in power. Now, how do you make that happen? It applies to world hunger. Human rights abuses. Diseases.
BTW, I look at the UN and US as two separte entities because if they were one, then the UN would be going to war when the US said they were. They didn't, the US did, so I view that as two discrete entities that made they're independent decisions.
I have to go. Nice talking with you.
US shouldn't have Bush in power... ho do you make it happen?
:-)
It shouldn't be up to a nation to decide fate of the other.
Anyway, take care.
Originally posted by X X
It is a mess, and I think our government screwed up in the aftermath. We're great at starting wars and winning them, but the cleanup afterwards, we need some serious tutoring. Also, though, I believe that it will take time for things to truly get better. It's not an overnight thing. Now, if a couple of years from now in Iraq we are where we are today, then I'm going to be really disappointed in our government. This is one area I believe a Democratic president would do much better than bush and so I hope Clark wins in 2004.
I'm still rather disappointed about the slow progress in Afghanistan, but given the derelict conditions of the entire nation, I expect those problems to take longer to fix. Again, I believe a democratic president would do more for Afghanistan than Bush is.
sure small "ooops", they do it better next time..
Also about that 'starting and winning'
Starting yes, winning, uhm, not soo much....
Originally posted by piwozniak
bunge's right...
[bunge looks to the right]
Originally posted by piwozniak
I really don't want to elaborate on that, it's just too much...
just think about one example(related to tech sector), All cell phones will be using CDMA, only country in a region, dying technology...
Go check who are contracted companies, billions of $$ in revenue, all american technology, services, equipment, for years to come...
Whoever made the decision to use CDMA technology, if in fact this is true, should be shot.
Can anyone defend this decision?
Originally posted by bunge
[BWhoever made the decision to use CDMA technology, if in fact this is true, should be shot.
Can anyone defend this decision? [/B]
It hasn't been decided yet.
Originally posted by bunge
Can anyone defend this decision?
Yeah the neo-cons.
Apparently the GSM is too french and outdated compared to CDMA.
It would be funny if it wasn´t so sad.
Iraqis would choose GSM
Originally posted by piwozniak
US shouldn't have Bush in power... ho do you make it happen?
:-)
It shouldn't be up to a nation to decide fate of the other.
Anyway, take care.
Hopefully, we'll make it happen by voting him out of office next year.
Anyway, I'll summarize why I think we went to war, and it includes "money", though only as a side effect (not from the short term contracts with Halliburton or Big Oil, either). Also, I'm sure many people will have there opinions, have artciles to counter my thoughts, etc., but I propose this because I believe the issue is more complicated than just saying we went to war because of WMD, or Terrorism, or Oil, or Money, or "your input". Because I'm growing weary of the Iraq and Israel/Palestinian threads, hopefully this will be my last post in this thread, which is why I'm summarizing my thoughts, so all the people I've been discussing this with will know where my reasoning comes from.
Here goes...I'll probably leave out a few things on accident but the jist is there...
There are two main thorns in the side of Middle East peace: Saddam Hussein and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (the big one). Since this thread is discussing Iraq I'll focusing on that aspect alone.
Before the war...Saddam and his cronies were in power, sanctions were on Iraq and didn't look as if they were ever going to be lifted because of the uncertainty surrounding WMD, fellow Mid East governments didn't like Saddam, most of his own people didn't like Saddam, most Arabs didn't like what Saddam did to his own people but they liked him because he was defiant with the US and UN, and Saddam gave an incentive for Palestinian suicide bombers to do their thing with the $25,000 he gave their families (though it's a very small incentive, it still exists). Even bin Laden didn't like Saddam. Also, having forces in Saudi Arabia was a recruiting factor for Al Qaeda (yes, I know we still have about 400 or so there)
By removing Saddam from power, it makes most Iraqis happy (though because the US has squandered the good will, they also are starting to dislike us), it makes other Arab governments feel less threatened, and it cuts off that tiny incentive for the Palestinian suicide bombers. It also allows inspectors to verify, after 12 years, that Saddam doesn't have WMD, let's the sanctions be lifted, and allows us to remove our forward base in Saudi Arabia.
If Bush's dream is realized and a democratic government is set up and an open economy is created, (remember, before the sanctions were imposed, Iraq had one of the more civilized societies in the region) then the US will have another ally in the region, the government will be strong, and the Iraqi's will have a higher standard of living. The US will also have a military presence in the heart of the Middle East that allows it to influence the governments around, particulary on terrorism.
Having the open market will, in the future, allow US companies to open shop there. This, I believe, is where the money factor will come from with this war. Not from the short term contracts with oil companies, and network companies, but with the long term investment of being able to have businesses inside Iraq, which may be able to spread into other Middle East nations. By having an open market and a democratic government, it'll create a much stronger government than any other one in that region that will be friendly towards it's neighbors and not hostile towards them. This will help with stability in the region.
This influence, may spread to other countries. If it does, then that furthers the stability in the region. Also, it will give people something more to live for than just thinking everyday how much they hate the US and Israel.
Why is it that Americans and Europeans aren't blowing themselves up anytime they get angry about something? It's because there's too much to lose. Perhaps you have a wife, a kid, a great job? A lot of people in the Middle East don't have those things, so they kling to a cause they can contribute to and fight for. If we can help improve their economies and create an incentive to go to school and be educated and get a job rather than sit around think how much they hate us, then we start eliminating some of the causes of terrorism. Iraq is the best and easiest place to start such a system. Nobody would go for the US going into Saudi Arabia and setting up a system like that.
Another reason why I believe Bush wanted to go to war was because during the Clinton years (though not his fault) he gave an image to the world that the US was a coward when it came to fighting. Somalies celebrated once a year the day the defeated the US when they killed 8 of our service members (despite they lost 1000s). Terrorist attacks happened and we asked the countries to arrest the fellows who did them. We fight the serbs from 30,000 ft. in the air because we don't want to loose any lives. After 9/11 and shortly after attacking Afghanistan, I remember reading that the running joke in the Middle East was all the US would do is sue. That's not a good image to have for any country. Why do you think going to war with Iraq was such an easy decision to make? The cost of lives would be relatively low for all the benefits that would come out. Iraq couldn't defend themselves. However, in other countries like the Congo, the cost of lives would be too high for any paultry benefit. Just the opposite. You need to have an image of power and strength to prevent others from attacking you. You must make people believe that the cost of going to war against someone will be too costly for whatever benefits that may exist. Iraq doesn't have that image, so decding to fight them makes it an easy decision.
In order to reestablish our image of being a "fighting force" I believe that our government knew this would be a good opportunity to remind the world, particulary, the Middle East, to not muck with us or else we'll come after you. This allowed us to set up a strong force in the heart of the Middle East that could be used as a reminder of our power and used to influence the policies of the surrounding nations.
I don't remember what all I wrote, but to summarize...
Removing Saddam, if done correctly, will allow a strong, wealthy government to be established in the Middle East, which would hopefully spread to the surrounding nations creating a stability in the region. It will also remind the world that we can still fight, and are willing to go it alone if necessary.
I'm tired of typing, and I'm sure there are still many questions, but that is the jist as to why I believe Bush was so set on going to war. I'm sure you can find holes in my thoughts, articles to contradict my beliefs (I'll read them and think about them). I probably left out something because I just jotted down the first thoughts off my head, but I'm tired of posting in the Iraq/Israeli threads, so I probably won't respond to any comments. Rip my thoughts away, or comment on them. I'll read.
P.S.
The reason I believe our government wants to control the oil in Iraq is not for financial gain, but because it currently is the only life-blood for the future of Iraq, it allows us to have a chokehold on any potential decisions the future government of Iraq. That is, if the Shia's decide to impose Sharia law throughout the country, we can say, "Uh uh" or you won't get your oil. It's a bargaining chip to ensure that the government does what's right for it's people.
Anyway, cheers!
Originally posted by Anders
Yeah the neo-cons.
Apparently the GSM is too french and outdated compared to CDMA.
It would be funny if it wasn´t so sad.
Iraqis would choose GSM
Senator Issa, who happens to have Qualcomm (owners of CDMA IP) on his patch, issued a briefing note saying that Congress should insist that GSM should not be used as it would "benefit Northern European Countries" ... after all, it stood for
"Groupe Speciale Mobile" - this standard was developed by the French
... of course it ACTUALLY stands for 'Global System for Mobile.'
He lied.
There was an uproar about the contents of his briefing note and he reissued it with, "Parlez-vous mobile?" as a big banner in order to insinuate it was a French technology, when it just isn't.
A CLASSIC example of how US corporates are using the war to further themselves at the expense of the Iraqi citizen.
Anyway, the US Government chose a different way to promote US interests here at the expense of the Europeans and Middle East in the end ... issuing a directive that only companies with less then 5% government ownership could apply to run a network in Iraq. France Telecom is therefore excluded, as are almost all companies in the area (including Vodafone that operates in partnership with local operators in the region, many of whom a government owned). Most of the best suited companies.
This decision was not made by Iraqis.
A US company / companies WILL operate Iraq's mobile network, although it may yet be GSM. Pity Afghanistan though where there wasn't even a process ... the US just awarded a US company the right to run a CDMA network ...
Here is Issa's note on his websty.
The legislation (two different 'laws' actually.
Originally posted by Harald
... of course it ACTUALLY stands for 'Global System for Mobile.'
He lied.
Ummm...No, he didn't lie.
"During the early 1980s, analog cellular telephone systems were experiencing rapid growth in Europe, particularly in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom, but also in France and Germany._ Each country developed its own system, which was incompatible with everyone else's in equipment and operation._ This was an undesirable situation, because not only was the mobile equipment limited to operation within national boundaries, which in a unified Europe were increasingly unimportant, but there was a very limited market for each type of equipment, so economies of scale, and the subsequent savings, could not be realized.
The Europeans realized this early on, and in 1982 the Conference of European Posts and Telegraphs (CEPT) formed a study group called the Groupe Spécial Mobile (GSM) to study and develop a panEuropean public land mobile system."
Found here.
And this...
"September - 13 operators and administrators from 12 areas in the CEPT GSM advisory group sign the charter GSM (Groupe Spéciale Mobile) MoU "Club" agreement, with a launch date of 1 July 1991.
The original French name was later changed to Global System for Mobile Communications, but the original GSM acronym stuck."
Found here.
Originally posted by X X
Ummm...No, he didn't lie.
Actually he did.
GSM as the system is short for Global System for Mobile telecommunications and not Group Special Mobile as Issa claims here.
We have learned that planners at the Department of Defense and USAID are currently envisioning using Federal appropriations to deploy a European-based wireless technology known as GSM (Groupe Speciale Mobile) for this new Iraqi cell phone system.
Group Special Mobile was, as your link shows, a collection of people who made the first draft of the GSM system.
Issa clearly talks aboput the system and not the group. TYherefore he talks about Global System for Mobile, which he choose to give another name.
Death penalty that is.
Originally posted by Anders
Actually he did.
GSM as the system is short for Global System for Mobile telecommunications and not Group Special Mobile as Issa claims here.
Group Special Mobile was, as your link shows, a collection of people who made the first draft of the GSM system.
Issa clearly talks aboput the system and not the group. TYherefore he talks about Global System for Mobile, which he choose to give another name.
With due respect, my link shows that the name was changed to "Global System for Mobile Communications" and that the name was changed (from another link I could post) only because the US adopted the GSM system, which originally stood for "Group Special Mobile". Prior to US adoption the system was known worldwide as Group Speciale Mobile.
In respect to Global System for Mobile Communications, GSM is an inaccurate and incomplete acronym simply because the C for Communications is left out. So he is still technically correct in saying that it stands for Group Speciale Mobile, becuase that is what it is commonly understood to stand for.
The technicality is similar to the acronym DVD. It originally stood for Digital Versatile Disk and technically still does, but because Video was the popular format for DVD, it has adopted the de facto name as Digital Video Disk. Akin to a name change that GSM underwent.
Regardless, it's utterly stupid to say someone is lying because they use an original acronym for something, and it just goes to show that some people on these boards are really stretching to try and find things the administration is "lying" about. If they lie, then fine, say they're lying, but don't try and take something as trivial as a minor change in an acronym to point fingers and say, "Hey, those bastards are lying again."
Originally posted by bunge
Death* to anyone that supports the creation of the CDMA system.
Death penalty that is.
Just interested, why is it that you are so opposed to the CDMA system?
Regards!
Originally posted by X X
Just interested, why is it that you are so opposed to the CDMA system?
Regards!
Because it wouldn't be by the choice of the Iraqis.
Originally posted by bunge
Because it wouldn't be by the choice of the Iraqis.
Ah, I can respect that, but is there anything from a technilogical standpoint that you are opposed? I'm interested because I understand that there is a rather heated debate between the two technologies in the industry. Primarily, GSM is a tried and true technology that is reliable and CDMA is a newer technology but offers certain technilogical advantages over GSM.
Originally posted by X X
Ah, I can respect that, but is there anything from a technilogical standpoint that you are opposed?
I can't vouch for one over the other, but I believe every country within 1000 kilometers is using GSM. Certainly any neighboring countries. To create an incompatibility like this is bad business for Iraq.
Originally posted by bunge
I can't vouch for one over the other, but I believe every country within 1000 kilometers is using GSM. Certainly any neighboring countries. To create an incompatibility like this is bad business for Iraq.
I agree.
Regards!
Originally posted by Northgate
... There was no IMMINENT THREAT!
Bush NEVER said the threat was imminent. What he said was the precise opposite. This is from the State of the Union last January:
... Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?
If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option...
Originally posted by bunge
Whoever made the decision to use CDMA technology, if in fact this is true, should be shot.
Can anyone defend this decision?
Yes.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Yes.
Good that it's not a terrible technology, but not good enough.