Marvin Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Vixef: It was about Norways involvment in Iraq.What happened to all that Viking spirit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixef Posted January 29, 2004 Report Share Posted January 29, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Marvin: quote:Originally posted by Vixef: It was about Norways involvment in Iraq.What happened to all that Viking spirit? Yup... Makes you wonder, doesn't it. BUT there are some of us left. For instance me. I usually play as a raider in BCM, and in real life (as if BMC isn't?) one of my favorite hobbies is raiding pubs... and a couple of times a year, I go abroad doing just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted January 29, 2004 Report Share Posted January 29, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Vixef: one of my favorite hobbies is raiding pubs... and a couple of times a year, I go abroad doing just that. Well, here's an akvavit boilermaker to you. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolferz Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Nukes??? Weee dohn need no steeeenking Nukes... We have the MOAB and some fuel/air explosives that will curl anyone's hair. The FAE will cause just as much death and destruction as a Tactical nuke, without the residual radiation. So we can come in afterwards and bulldoze the resulting mess into a hole and bury it. So, C'mon world, step up to the batters box. If ya wanna play, We can play. We could, quite literally, eat China's lunch and spit Watermelon seeds at them afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandus Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 quote:This is why Tactical Nuclear weapons were invented, and don't think that we wouldn't use them if it became necassary. No, we would win, the price would be high, but in the end, we would win.Jaguar, as much as I agree with you, I must point out that almost 50% of the American public went ape over this whole thing with Iraq which was non-nuclear. Do you think any president would possibly be able to survive the first nuclear weapons release since WW2? I highly doubt it and with the politicians we have coming through the pipes these days I bet they'd be more willing about their arses and reelection then dropping a nuclear weapon to win a war...can you imagine the CNN footage? The US would be condemed worldwide... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Schacher Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 I think the question of "necessary" use of nukes is the key. It would be very hard to imagine a situation today where the USA would find it necessary to use nukes, given how we showed the world how quickly our forces could take a country like Iraq. The use of nukes in WWII was deemed necessary because they saw a protracted fight resulting in the invasion of Japan, which would result in many more dead Americans (and Japanese) than the display of nuclear might would cause. That situation doesn't exist today. Unless we're going head-to-head with China or Russia in a war (in which case we have more important things at stake), the use of nukes would be impossible to defend other than for the sake of expediency, which wouldn't be a sufficient defense in many peoples mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epsilon 5 Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 why don't we just devellop an ion cannon like in single every RTS games with modern or future USA (or derivative, AKA GDI) as a faction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gol_Stoan Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 There are always Neutron bombs, (now there's a republican weapon) Kills all the people but leaves the real estate intact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalshion Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Epsilon 5: why don't we just devellop an ion cannon like in single every RTS games with modern or future USA (or derivative, AKA GDI) as a faction? We already have that EP5, its already been in the news that we have such a weapon in space its just never used (due to its destructive potential) quote: The use of nukes in WWII was deemed necessary because they saw a protracted fight resulting in the invasion of Japan, which would result in many more dead Americans (and Japanese) than the display of nuclear might would cause. That situation doesn't exist today.Didn't I just explain why we used nukes in Japan? Someone clearly hasn't been reading every post here We will use nukes if its deemed nessecary, and in my opinion if this war on terror continues we will see such use of these weapons I mean think about it people, some weapon straps a few explosives to herself and blows up killing everyone around her just so her kids can get some money... whoa now hold on a second! What about her kid!? You mean to tell me her nation is MORE important than her kids!? Jesus christ what type of religion do these idiots follow, wait we already know! You see the problem lies in how people interpret there religion. The god they serve is the SAME god we serve, the SAME god that China serves There is only ONE god. Im not a religous type of person, mainly because I've found it useless to serve after my mother died of cancer (geez god where were you when she needed you most!!! ) thats why I don't like religion mainly Anywho back on topic This war on terror will continue no matter WHAT we do, and beleave it or not EVERY country is included and involved in this war In my opinion the only way this war will end is if we nuked the whole planet. But then again we would be killing ourselves to because we have terrorist cells here Its a triple bladed sword people, no matter how many times we kill the terrorists there'll always be more to take there place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Schacher Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 quote:Someone clearly hasn't been reading every post hereSorry... It really was a minor footnote to my point, though. I don't think the USA wants to risk the political fallout (pun intended) from being the only country to use nukes twice in hostilities when conventional means are available. Besides, if we do use them, that will only embolden others to try to retaliate with nukes here (more than they're trying now). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalshion Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 The reason we don't really use them is becuase of the damage it'll cause to the enviroment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Schacher Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 I don't know about that. We're not talking about Hiroshima-sized weapons over major population centers; we're talking about tactical (small-scale?) nuclear weapons, deployed in a desert or mountain region. Perhaps the only environmental concern is for contaminating the oil reserves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalshion Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 That would be the concern Because the oil vains do go down a long way, whats to provent the shock wave from the explosion using the oil vains as a mean of traval? If your wondering what I'm talking about is this In order to pump oil you need to drill for it.. whats to provent the shock wave from using the hole that drill made? The wave would go through the ground and possibly break up that area. But who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Che Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 Jaguar is WRONG...don't believe the lies. This war in Iraq was purely political. Paul O'Neill explained it perfectly on 60 Minutes. There is no better way of getting re-elected than starting a popular war...just ask FDR. Saddam Hussein was NEVER a threat to the United States or anyone else for that matter. The hipocracy that goes on under the name of "patriotism" in this country is totally disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Che Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 And for all you "euros" as jaguar calls you, i say Slainte....good health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclipse Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 quote:Originally posted by El Che: Jaguar is WRONG...don't believe the lies. This war in Iraq was purely political. Paul O'Neill explained it perfectly on 60 Minutes. There is no better way of getting re-elected than starting a popular war...just ask FDR. Saddam Hussein was NEVER a threat to the United States or anyone else for that matter. The hipocracy that goes on under the name of "patriotism" in this country is totally disgusting. Son, if you truly believe that FDR started WWII then you need a serious history lesson. WWII started when the Germans invaded Poland in 1939, the United States didn't get involved until after the supprise attack on Pear Harbor by the Japs on Dec. 7, 1941. While we might have stretched the bounds of neutralitly to an extreme before this time with the lend lease act, and the slow ratcheting up to wartime production, it was the attack on our nation that finally pushed us over the brink. IIRC FDR's platform for the election was even "he kept us out of war" doesn't sound like a president that was using a popular war for a reelection since it was 3rd or 4th term anyway. If you think Sadam Hussein was never a threat, ask the Iranians, or perhaps the Kuati's he's threatoned and invaded in the past. Or was he just trying to be a "nice guy" and defend these countries from "American agression?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclipse Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 quote:Originally posted by El Che: Jaguar is WRONG...don't believe the lies. This war in Iraq was purely political. Paul O'Neill explained it perfectly on 60 Minutes. There is no better way of getting re-elected than starting a popular war...just ask FDR. Saddam Hussein was NEVER a threat to the United States or anyone else for that matter. The hipocracy that goes on under the name of "patriotism" in this country is totally disgusting. Son, if you truly believe that FDR started WWII then you need a serious history lesson. WWII started when the Germans invaded Poland in 1939, the United States didn't get involved until after the supprise attack on Pear Harbor by the Japs on Dec. 7, 1941. While we might have stretched the bounds of neutralitly to an extreme before this time with the lend lease act, and the slow ratcheting up to wartime production, it was the attack on our nation that finally pushed us over the brink. (I stand corrected this was Wilson during WWI) [FDR's platform for the election was even "he kept us out of war" doesn't sound like a president that was using a popular war for a reelection] since it was 3rd or 4th term anyway. If you think Sadam Hussein was never a threat, ask the Iranians, or perhaps the Kuati's he's threatoned and invaded in the past. Or was he just trying to be a "nice guy" and defend these countries from "American agression?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 quote:Originally posted by El Che: Jaguar is WRONG...don't believe the lies. This war in Iraq was purely political. Paul O'Neill explained it perfectly on 60 Minutes. There is no better way of getting re-elected than starting a popular war...just ask FDR. Saddam Hussein was NEVER a threat to the United States or anyone else for that matter. The hipocracy that goes on under the name of "patriotism" in this country is totally disgusting. Another one of these conpiracy Kook theorists that claims that Iraq was Political. Oh please, let's see proof of you assertions. I love how you guys pop on, make a BOLD statement like this, and have no facts to back you up. Let's see the facts instead of bald faced assertions. Typical liberal, "I feel this way, therefore it must be the truth." Oh please, enlighten us oh liberal and feeling one, where are the facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalshion Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 quote:Originally posted by El Che: Jaguar is WRONG...don't believe the lies. This war in Iraq was purely political. Paul O'Neill explained it perfectly on 60 Minutes. There is no better way of getting re-elected than starting a popular war...just ask FDR. Saddam Hussein was NEVER a threat to the United States or anyone else for that matter. The hipocracy that goes on under the name of "patriotism" in this country is totally disgusting. Instead of replying and attempting to downgrade one of our best members, how about you show PROOF first? Jaguar has shown more than enough proof to support what he says so I find it hard to beleave that you say he's lieing... oh wait, I forgot Liberals live in denial and will always live in denial cause all they enjoy doing is down grading others without showing any proof There's a saying I call you liberals when ever you act stupid and try to downgrade others Kami kokuhyo suru baka riberaru! Have a nice day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruis.In Posted February 4, 2004 Report Share Posted February 4, 2004 you know I havent been here any real long time, so no need to really listen to me, but i see this i have to say something. quote:SC would've deleted this thread LONG ago if it wasn't constructive-kalshion during my time here, i have never seen the SC delete a thread discussion such as this one, political or otherwise, he deletes rubbish threads, that have no bearing at all, and those are usually just filled with one post with stupid questions... it could be argued that nothing in our discussions is constructive heh, then following what you said he would delete all posts. oh and i dont think the guy with the funny name was trying to "bring down" jag, he just said he was wrong, and well anyone looking on a debate would say jag wins, because he presents alot of facts etc.. and the guy just says jag is wrong. remember this isn't personal stuff(how many times do i have to say this) havent said it in long. but dont take things so personal its a discussion, even in my little rant earlier on, it wasnt personal just personal against myself heh. so take it easy kalshy buddy, Jag can defend himself, can't you tiger oh and some of Jag's facts could very well be based on the :spin: weaved on news on american t.v. couldn't it jag? (he'll never admit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2004 Report Share Posted February 4, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Cruis.In: so take it easy kalshy buddy, Jag can defend himself, can't you tiger oh and some of Jag's facts could very well be based on the :spin: weaved on news on american t.v. couldn't it jag? (he'll never admit) LOL, I will admit this much, 90% of my information does NOT come from American Media, it either comes from outside the US, or from people within the situation itself. So, yes, 10% of my info might be a bit biased by the American media, other then that, NOPE!! BTW, I do NOT watch TV, hundreds of channels and nothing is on!! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Che Posted February 4, 2004 Report Share Posted February 4, 2004 Well, the thing is, there were statements made on here to the effect that there ARE WMD's in Iraq and they will be found eventually (sound familiar, Jag?), and now the government is finally admitting that there are no WMD's in Iraq and there weren't any before we bombed the crap out of that country. I don't have a large amount of computer skills, so I still haven't figured out how to do those links to the sites where the information is. I am making an effort, though and hope to provide the facts to back up my statements in the future. For that I apologize. And as a side note, I am shocked at some people's flippant remarks about nuclear weapons and our country's use of them. I worked in the Air Force's nuclear weapons program for 4 years and I can tell you, it is nothing to be taken lightly. Our country has the ability to unleash destruction the likes of which are horrific. The primary purpose of our nuclear weapons program is deterrence and I hope that it remains that way. For a look at my home base, check out Vandenberg AFB on-line. Home of space and missile country. They have a shuttle launch pad there as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2004 Report Share Posted February 4, 2004 First off, there were WMD's in Iraq, we destroyed quite a few when we were actually doing something there. UN inspections etc. Saddam was ordered to show that he had destroyed them, they handed us a list of WMD's that they knew they had after the Gulf war. That list we had was provided BY Iraq, we didn't put it together, THEY did. They were then ordered to destroy those WMD's and PROVE that they had. Well, they CLAIMED they had destroyed them, and even publicly destroyed some of them, but they NEVER PROVED that they had destroyed the remainder. They claimed that they hadn't kept track of the destruction, when you consider the paperwork and the things that they DID keep track of, such a claim was ridiculous. Then Saddam kicked out the inspectors, and they remained out, he also played games with the inspectors, they would go someplace, be stopped, played with until nightfall, then when they came back the next day, the place would have been emptied out the night before. Yeah, right, Iraq did not have or does not have WMD's. You need to get a grip on reality. A majority of those WMD's are either A: hidden and buried in the Desert, or B:were shipped off to Syria, we have intelligence and satelite reconnaisance of that possibility, but the media of course ignores that. Also, Iraq is about the same square miles as the state of California, so not being able to find WMD'd is not surprising at this point. Everyone seems to be under the impression that Iraq is the size of Rhode Island or something. Please, Please, get a grip on reality. Right now, we may not be able to find those WMD's, but they existed, and do exist, it is just a matter of locating them. Also, as far as flippantly talking about Nuclear Weapons and their use. If it became necassary to use tactical nukes against someone, because we had no other choice, I assure you, they would be used. We are not talking about city busters here, we are talking low yield Tactical, about the explosive force of about 10-20 MOAB's. And don't feel alone in your old line of work, and that is all that I will say about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Schacher Posted February 5, 2004 Report Share Posted February 5, 2004 Cyanide Salt Block Found in Iraq quote:WASHINGTON ÔÇö A 7-pound block of cyanide salt (search) was discovered by U.S. troops in Baghdad at the end of January, officials confirmed to Fox News. The potentially lethal compound was located in what was believed to be the safe house of Abu Musab Zarqawi (search), a poisons specialist described by some U.S. intelligence officials as having been a key link between deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the Al Qaeda (search) terror network. Cyanides salts are extremely toxic. According to the U.S. Department of Energy's Ames Laboratory, exposure to even a small amount through contact or inhalation can cause immediate death. Zarqawi, believed to have been operating in Iraq before March's invasion, was still being sought by coalition forces. It was not clear if anyone had been apprehended in connection with last month's find. Early last year, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell (search) detailed Zarqawi's significance in an appearance before the U.N. Security Council. "Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants," Powell said. Zarqawi was described as a poisons expert with strong ties to the former Iraqi regime and the terrorist groups Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam. A Palestinian born in Jordan who fought in Afghanistan more than a decade ago, Zarqawi returned to Afghanistan in 2000 to oversee terrorist training camps, Powell told the Security Council. "One of his specialties at the camp was poisons," Powell said. "When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosives training center." Zarqawi is believed to have begun establishing terror cells in and around Baghdad prior to the start of the war last March, and is thought by U.S. officials to still be in the country. U.S. officials, who said they were getting new intelligence in the hunt for Zarqawi, also believe he had been attempting to produce large quantities of the toxin ricin in northern Iraq. Question: Even though cyanide salts have many industrial uses, why would a 7lb block be found in someone's safehouse instead of an industrial warehouse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gol_Stoan Posted February 6, 2004 Report Share Posted February 6, 2004 Ah, but poisons are not being considered to be WMDs by the media, the ricin found in DC was not considered to be a WMD, just a very deadly poison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now