Post originally by JRKilroy at 2003-05-16 06:47:55
Converted from Phorums BB System
The "Daisy Cutter" isn't a fuel-air-explosive, it is a very large conventional explosive. It gets it's name from it's use in Vietnam to clear foliage. (The blast would knock all the trees down for hundreds of yards around, allowing the quick construction of a firebase.) It is a direct descendant of the "blockbusters" used by the allies during WWII.
Unfortunately I don't carry my refrence to work, so I can't give the exact weight or designation.
Post originally by Zoran Bekric at 2003-05-17 20:25:58
Converted from Phorums BB System
In the review David Sinclair wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------
<i>In this one, the "rules" section consists of some scary, detailed background information and game rules for a sampling of chemical and biological weapons developed by the Iraqi government.</i>
---------------------------------------------------------
These would be the chemical and biological weapons no-one, including the 75th Exploitation Task Force, has been able to find any trace of? Those chemical and biological weapons?
Well, I suppose, if the write-ups included features like "invisible", "intangible" and "untracable" it would be an accurate portrayal of them in game terms.
Post originally by David Sinclair at 2003-05-18 13:09:09
Converted from Phorums BB System
So we could go the easy route and say that the book allows playing out both wars with Iraq. Another easy route would be to say that the books allows the presentation of what-if scenarios, as in "what if Iraq still had these weapons and used them"?
But since you're personal views in regards to the war are being injected into this, I think other indiscrepancies need to be countered. Just because they haven't found anything significant as of yet doesn't mean they don't exist. After all, there are tens of tons of those weapons that were not accounted for after the first war.
And there are over 1 million crippled Iranian war veterans who will dispute any claims that such weapons never existed.
Incidentally, early on they did find one artillery shell warhead with traces of botullinum in it, though it had been emptied out. There have also been a number of incidents where they found contaminated samples of chemical weapons. With the runaround of the last 10 years I don't think it is implausible to suspect the contamination is intentional as a means of hiding chemical weapons. And don't forget the three weapons lab trailers they've locates so far and have yet to complete testing on. So while they haven't found any large quanitites, I don't think one should say "untracable" without any doubts as well.
And searchers are still hunting along the Texas/Louisiana border for Columbia debris, 3 1/2 months later, where what they're looking for is out in the open, waiting to be found. Why would hunting for chemical and biological weapons in a similarly sized area be any easier when such materials are or were actively hidden away?
Anyway, while we are busy nitpicking my statements, where did I say those weapons were developed _recently_?
Post originally by Zoran Bekric at 2003-05-18 17:55:52
Converted from Phorums BB System
David Sinclair wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------
<i>So we could go the easy route and say that the book allows playing out both wars with Iraq. Another easy route would be to say that the books allows the presentation of what-if scenarios, as in "what if Iraq still had these weapons and used them"?</i>
---------------------------------------------------------
We could. And it would be a neat solution.
---------------------------------------------------------
<i>But since you're personal views...</i>
---------------------------------------------------------
"Personal views"? Independently verifiable evidence is neither "personal" nor a "view". Quite the opposite. It's the very essence of objectivity. As is the lack of such evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------
<i>Why would hunting for chemical and biological weapons in a similarly sized area be any easier when such materials are or were actively hidden away?</i>
---------------------------------------------------------
Because the searchers claimed to have proof positive based on reliable intelligence of the existence and location of such weapons and used that claim to justify an aggressive war?
Your quibbling suggests that the "proof" was less than "positive", the "intelligence" was less than "reliable" and the claim was less than honest.
---------------------------------------------------------
<i>Anyway, while we are busy nitpicking my statements, where did I say those weapons were developed _recently_?</i>
---------------------------------------------------------
From your blurb: <i>"Focuses on weapons used in the recent war in Iraq."</i>
Post originally by David Sinclair at 2003-05-18 18:31:59
Converted from Phorums BB System
Yes, personal views. Regardless the lack of independant verification of any evidence collected up to this point, anyone who thinks the Hussein regime ever had any intention of diarming its weapons of mass destruction is being unrealistic and downright foolish.
Is it really your opinion that having relatively unrestricted access to anywhere within Iraq for a period of barely a full month is sufficient to find anything that was intentionally hidden, given all the additional factors like infrastructure repairs, lawlessness, and the theft of billions of dollars worth of art and artifacts?
Heck, look at how long it has taken to collect those 55 people on the "most wanted" deck of cards thus far... And how about a warehouse full of thousands of 55 gallon oil drums, how long will it take to check all those drums to ensure that no drums full of weapons of mass destruction have been shuffled in with hundreds of drums of innocuous materials? And how about those eight weapons labs trailers they've been hunting for? They've only found three of those so far.
And as for proof of biological weapons loose inside Iraq, much of the staff of the Iraqi Ministry of Health did come forward to state that there were dozens of samples of biological agents, weaponizable ones and otherwise, that vanished during the days leading up to the fall of Bagdad. Admittedly, at this point, they could be anywhere in the world let alone anywhere in Iraq and there isn't much more than the word of doctors and a little documentation to prove they existed, but why assume the doctors lied about the theft?
At best, I would say your views are sorely premature. Maybe six months down the road, I might agree with your views, but not yet.
Now, going to my blurb of "Focuses on weapons used in the recent war in Iraq.", I did say "focuses", not "focuses exclusively". The first volume focused on sidearms made by defunct Spanish weaponmaker Astra (right down to a nifty pistol capable of readily firing any 9mm or .38 cartridge 23mm long or shorter), but there were plenty of guns from other companies presented.
Thank you for the entertaining disagreement,
David Sinclair
Post originally by Zoran Bekric at 2003-05-18 19:38:52
Converted from Phorums BB System
David Sinclair wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------
<i>Yes, personal views. Regardless the lack of independant verification of any evidence collected up to this point, anyone who thinks the Hussein regime ever had any intention of diarming its weapons of mass destruction is being unrealistic and downright foolish.</i>
---------------------------------------------------------
You are quite right. If I'd said any of that it would indeed have been a personal view. Trouble is, I didn't. I just pointed out a rather spectacular discrepancy between claims and evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------
<i>Is it really your opinion that having relatively unrestricted access to anywhere within Iraq for a period of barely a full month is sufficient to find anything that was intentionally hidden, given all the additional factors like infrastructure repairs, lawlessness, and the theft of billions of dollars worth of art and artifacts?</i>
---------------------------------------------------------
It's my opinion that if someone claims to have intelligence of such weapons so strong and certain that it's enough to justify an immediate war, then, yes, that intelligence should be able to lead them straight to those weapons well within a month of unrestricted access. Actually, I would have expected irrefutable evidence to have surfaced during the war when such weapons were actually used.
If the intelligence isn't strong and certain enough to allow finding such weapons within a month of unrestricted access, then it wasn't strong or certain enough to justify going to war.
As it is, each day that passes makes the initial claims look more and more dubious.
---------------------------------------------------------
<i>Admittedly, at this point, they could be anywhere in the world let alone anywhere in Iraq and there isn't much more than the word of doctors and a little documentation to prove they existed, but why assume the doctors lied about the theft?</i>
---------------------------------------------------------
Actually I think the documentation is the best evidence so far. If those doing the searching actually expected to find anything, I believe they would have been very careful to secure all the various Iraqi government ministries as soon as possible. That way forensic accountants and the like would be going through all the records of the former regime even now, looking for the "paper trail" of those weapons no matter how it was disguised. After all, the project to hide the weapons could have been hidden under the label "Saladin Memorial Fruit Tree Irrigation Project" at the Ministry of Agriculture or some such. Sure, going through all those records would have been time-consuming, but run in parallel with searches on the ground, it would have had a much better chance of finding any such weapons.
The fact is, though, the searchers did no such thing. Didn't secure the ministries at all. Let arsonists burn them and any paper trail they may have contained even after they had secured Bagdad. This suggests to me that the searchers are either incompetent or that they didn't expect to find anything and so didn't waste resources in even trying to present the appearance that they were looking. I don't believe they are incompetent.
---------------------------------------------------------
<i>At best, I would say your views are sorely premature. Maybe six months down the road, I might agree with your views, but not yet.</i>
---------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough. Obviously I disagree, but I can see that as a valid point of view.
---------------------------------------------------------
<i>Thank you for the entertaining disagreement,</i>
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the civil response.
If you had written something like "including the chemical and biological weapons Iraq was alleged to have had in the recent war" there wouldn't be any disagreement, since it is indisputable that Iraq was indeed alleged to have such weapons. A minor point, but God is in the details.
I should also point out that, overall, I enjoyed the two reviews of <i>Big Bang.</i> Thank you for doing them.
Post originally by Huh at 2003-07-18 00:14:33
Converted from Phorums BB System
This guy pulled the wool over everyone's eyes. Go look at his list of reviews. Note that Dana Jorgensen products all score high, products directly competing with those score low, and lack of a review for any other item.
Then go read the reviews. Notice how many insults he throws at anyone who disagrees with Dana Jorgensen or himself.
Then read the reviewer comments. In the newest ones we'll see him admit that he "met" Jorgensen once and then later oh, they are in the same RPG group, and oh, some of the products he reviewed were "borrowed" from Jorgensen.
Post originally by David Sinclair at 2003-07-29 11:14:47
Converted from Phorums BB System
Now it's doubly amusing.
As I posted in reply to your previous personal attack:
Amusing.
First, I am not a member of Dana Jorgensen's gaming group. I know him through a local store where he playtests products. Personally, I think the guy tends to be an jerk, but I won't hold his personality against the quality of the work he does.
Second, as at least one of my reviews indicates, I have access to many of the books I have recently reviewed thanks to a gaming library.
Additionally, all the products I have reviewed can be found online. Unfortunately, RPGnow sells to many unscrupulous people who will immediately add the files they bought to their Kazaa shared folders, IRC server folders, or Direct Connect hubs the moment they finish downloading them.
Linear Mode
