v01i0
-
Posts
204 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by v01i0
-
-
ElBaradei claims that he and his team cannot find evidence about Iran developing nukes, as he and Hans Blixt couldn't find them on Iraq years ago. France, Israel and US however claims that Iran is going for nuke, and they got certain intelligence on that, just like they did with Saddam. What is your opinion?
I don't care, because Iran has every right to make nuke if it chooses to. Most "experts" seem to think that if Iran gets nukes, it destabilizes the middle-east / persia region, but that contradicts, because Israel is currently only confirmed nuke power on the region.
-v
-
Yay, Ron Paul seems to have some sense, for a US presidency candidate at least.
-v
-
-
EDIT - lol.
You can make Iraq even safer if you divide the death roll with whole duration of the war. Even more reason to pull out!
-v
-
I decided to post this topic, because I wanted to see if people have any personal experiences of climate change. If you are interested, please post your comments or perceptions about your local climate change, so we can perhaps see, if there's climate change at all...
I'll post mine tho.. It has been quite obvious here where I live. Winters have become lot warmer and summers even more hot. We used to have snowy winters, that usually started around october - november, but now its half way december and no snow. This not first year when the beginning of winter has been late.
Absence of frost is causing some problems that we're perhaps overlooked earlier. When the water doesen't freeze as it used to, it causes flooding. Southern Sweden is now having severe flooding, and there are signs of that in here too. Water levels are nearly high enough to be considered flooding. If the frost won't come, and the rain instead keeps coming, many people will suffer from flooding. In Finland, lot of terrain are nearly at sea level or just above, that considerable rise in sea level will cause a lot of trouble.
If this heating continues year by year, it'll take only some 10 - 20 years when we'll have quite a different atmosphere here in scandinavia.. I still remember the frosty winters of my youth, and it really has changed in 10 years.
I'm not saying which causes climate change, and I'm hoping that this thread will not become one of those with furious depates about some irrelevant issue, but rather to keep this so that people will only post their real experiences about climate change if theres any.
thanks,
-v
-
Better to practice in moon first TBH.
-v
-
O well, I guess that the DU was bad example of dangerous modern weaponry. I still think that it may cause surprising health and ecological effects. Nevertheless, it was just one examble, while fact remains that modern warfare is way more lethal, both to people and enviroment.
-v
-
Updating your PC is a vicious circle :/ But yeah, its the way to game I think.
-v
-
Ok, maybe I gotta learn to write, for this is possible the reason why you freaked out Jag:
quote:Originally posted by Voli0:You can't claim that in such certainty. What if it leaches into water supplies? In the areas where they've been used a lot, it is a real threat.-vBut it is supposed to be an answer for this:
quote:Originally posted by Jaguar:Depleted Uranium causes absolutely NO long term impact, and whoever told you that it did is full of it and lied to you.Let me clarify the 1st quote, it should read something like these instead:
You can't claim that in such certainty(that DU doesent cause long term health effects). What if it leaches into water supplies? In the areas where they've been used a lot, (leaching in water supplies) is a real threat.
I hope that would clarify things up for a bit.
-v
-
quote:Originally posted by Jaguar:To freak out about a little bit of radioactivity is stupid, ignorant, and outright ridiculous.As I said, DU is dangerous if ingested for it's heavy metal properties, NOT radioactivity.There is more radioactivity in your own house, coming from your own monitor, then there is from DU.To claim that DU is dangerous radioactivel is ignorance at it's best.It's radioactive, so it must be dangerous, get a grip on reality. [/QB]
Shut up man. Look who took it as an issue. I barely mentioned it when referring to modern warfare and you started to freak out about it! You should get a grip of reality, as you like to say. I never even mentioned it radioactivity, did I??
No matter what, I still doubt that you would give your awesome DU bullet to your kids for them to play with it.
Read other people post dude, or I begin to wonder whether you are able to read at all. I NEVER MENTIONED RADIOACTIVITY BEFORE THIS POST.
-v
PS. I hope you can read this thread carefully through again.. Skimming through obviously is not working for you, as you cannot regonize the points out of the text.
-
What makes you so sure that it doesen't leach?
What about the children living in the areas where DU has been used? They are greatly in danger to get it in their system if they play in the area.
And what about your own soldiers that were exposed to it during the desert storm? Yes, they had to get exposed to DU from the fragments of friendly fire and they're still having higher uranium amounts in their urea, and they've been reporting strange symptoms. Even it may not be deadly, but it certainly doesen't positively contribute on one's health.
If you're claiming that it is safe, then give a DU bullet to your kids to play.. what the hell, its not even dangerous.
-v
-
You can't claim that in such certainty. What if it leaches into water supplies? In the areas where they've been used a lot, it is a real threat.
-v
-
quote:Originally posted by Eclipse:Back to your point, adjusting the cost from WWII into todays dollars would provide an accurate comparison despite the different time periods. So, in a thin attempt to give relevancy to the previous, if WWII cost 3.6 trillion dollars and we, at most, have spent 600 billion dollars on Iraq, I would say that the cost is not nearly as great as WWII in roughly the same duration.
So they are not comparable least in this aspect. War in Iraq is lot less expensive so far. But I think our little depate is on wrong tracks because of a slight misunderstanding. War in Iraq is not yet on the WW scale, but of course it could expand.
What comes to the modern warfare, which is more devastating in many sense than WW2 weaponry was, there are many weapon developments that outrun older weaponry easily in capability to cause long term destruction. Like depleted uranium and many kind of biological and also other type of nuclear weaponry. You are right that many of are expansions or developments of WW2 warfare, but there are also some new addons in arsenal that WW2 armies didn't have, like helis.
-v
-
Jag, it was Israel that attacked Egypt first(because Egypt had banned Israeli ships from Straits of Tiran) , which started 6 day war. But I don't think that was the war in which LostInSpace referred to.. I think he meant the war right after Israel's independece was declared at 1948.
-v
-
Almost. However Egypt hold Gaza strip on its control after that war.
-v
-
quote:Originally posted by Eclipse:quote:Originally posted by JUDGExKTF:quote:The world couldn't afford World War 2 either, but after the war was won, we had one of the largest economic growths in history.
You cant possibly believe you can compare those wars on the level of economic impact.
I fail to see why they can't be compared. WWII, in my estimation, nearly destroyed the economies of Europe while leaving the US mostly untouched. I realize that the dollar, pound sterling, or whatever unit of monetary value you swear by has changed in the sixty years or so since the war ended but it is possible to take into account inflation and get a pretty good comparison of the cost of the war in todays currency. I'm sure that back then there were naysayers too that said the cost was too great. Thats just the way government works. Someone will always say its too expensive unless it deals with where he lives and suddenly it becomes necessary for the survival of the species. I digress. Can you explain your reasoning behind why the two wars can't be compared in terms of finantial cost?
1) Because we don't live in middle of 20th century anymore, the costs are going to be higher.2) Because those who are affected by the possible conflict are going to be different one from those of WW2.
3) Because the full scale world war with modern warfare are going to have quite different affect to the post war world.
Those are the few reasons I could think of from this seat.
-v
-
Jag, again I must disagree with you. First of all, I'm not saying that muslims cannot have democracy, what I said was that democracy in Iraq won't work before its nationalities has settled down their differences, either by agreeing on common rules or by becoming independent. Most likely a civil war of some extent will be needed. If not civil war, then the other two methods I listed in my 1st post.
You blame Syria and Iran of supporting insurgency in Iraq, which is only half truth if its true at all; there is growing evidence that the support for insurgents comes from other muslim countries as well, like Egypt and Iraq's neighbour Saudi-Arabia. I don't know how much press reports there, but at least here we have multiple articles where Iraqi Officials blame Saudi's for supporting insurgency there.
Besides, not long ago, Egyptian police arrested group of students which were suspected of planning terrorist attacks in Iraq and elsewhere in middle-east. Group consisted 1 US citizen, 11 europeans plus many arabs.
So, you gotta lotsa to do if you gonna block all three borders and freeze the money and support coming from other than those countries.
When you say there's no civil war, we must assume that Kofi Annan is mixed up in his mind, because he claims indeed that there is a civil war? Oh dear, I'm not sure whether I should believe you and one suspicous letter from your pal in Iraq, or my own interpretation which is based on quite a extensive research which I'm able to do from my armchair
-v
-
I doubt that letter would've even been passed on to Jag if it instead said that there is a civil war. Don't you think that Sunnis and Shias are not in war with each other?
Remember that Iraq is an artificial soveirgnity with artificial borders. European imperialists divided those areas as the saw fitting, regardless how the nation's were spread before. So they created a land with many nationalities in it, and it is not going to solve without a civil war, a dictator or by extended presence of foreign force.
Saddam was that dictator, he kept nationalities in bay with his iron grip. Now Allied forces are the foreign force that keeps relative peace by its presence. Leaving now or in coming few years would undoubtely cause a real outbreak of civil war, so you'll have to extend the presence in iraq if you want the mission to be accomplished.
Unfortunately, senator McCain is right when he wants to add the quantity of forces in iraq to solve the problems with peace in there. Unfortunately, really.
-v
-
This is necromancing a thread, but things are starting to unveil:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1557842,00.html
-v
-
ROFLMAO @ both of ya
-v
-
That's good IMO. Hopefully they'll get out something to dig out all the crap Bush administration is trying to cover.
-v
-
quote:Originally posted by aramike:Why the hell do certain people always feel the need to defend the "crook"? Is there some underlying issue surrounding "authority" that somehow makes every decision they make the wrong one?It's amazing how the people who continuously criticize the authorities have no idea what it's like to actually walk in their shoes...Oh, and he was TASERED, not SHOT. Is the need to protest authority so deep that even HUMANE methods of restraint are not acceptable?
Are you blaming me of being humane or idiot? or both?
-v
-
quote:Originally posted by stingray:Don't worry guys, someday it's going to be cool again to be republican. You can count on the democrats to foul things up.
I just have feeling that it'll be just as stingray stated. Because dems will have to fix the mess that the reps have caused, and thats not popular.
-v
-
quote:Originally posted by Soback:As far as your better alternative goes. Don't just say "I am sure there was a better alternative". PRESENT your better alternative of how to get a moron to comply.
I missed you! Where have you been?
Well, they've could just move that guy out of there. After all, he was cuffed, so they should've been to able remove him quite easily without tasering.
-v
Let's mock France again \o/
in Politics, Religion & Legal etc
Posted
I thought I saw the shift in french foreign policies. The sift from Chirac's France relative Palestine sympathizer to more anti-arabic and pro US france of Sarkozy's.
Then the explanations begin to surface:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18664.htm
It's almost as nice as Dick Cheney being former president of Trilateral Commission or something and not telling it prior campaining. Treason.
-v