2
   

U.S. Lies About Use of Chemical Weapons

 
 
Stevepax
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 03:26 pm
I find your win at any cost mindset most disturbing. The fact that you don't care what other countries think of us and our methods is clear. You won't be too surprised and upset though when American cities start being turned into radioactive dust. After all, it is acceptable to win at any cost.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 03:42 pm
Stevepax wrote:
I find your win at any cost mindset most disturbing. The fact that you don't care what other countries think of us and our methods is clear. You won't be too surprised and upset though when American cities start being turned into radioactive dust. After all, it is acceptable to win at any cost.


You seemed to have missed it when I said "short of nukes".

Also,every country that claims to hate us,are the first ones in line to accept handouts and free money from us.
If they truly hated us,they wouldnt take our money and our giveaways.
0 Replies
 
Stevepax
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 05:10 pm
Thats horseshit MM. They all take our money, even our so called friends like Pakistan who are now harboring the guy that started all this.

By the way, just because you'd stop short of nukes, doesn't mean they'll consider that a limitation. Just like you think using chemical weapons on them is fine. Maybe they have soneone just like you who think winning at any cost is justified.

We're already using nukes on them in a way ... what do you call irradiated ammunition? Of course, I imagine that's fine with you also. Just because it's all over their landscape and affects their biology, what the hell. MM says whatever it takes to win.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 06:39 pm
Stevepax wrote:
By the way, just because you'd stop short of nukes, doesn't mean they'll consider that a limitation.


They nuke us = we genocide them.

(IMO.)



Stevepax wrote:
Just like you think using chemical weapons on them is fine.


No one here has said using chemical weapons is fine, and no one (besides Saddam) has used chemical weapons in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 06:40 pm
Stevepax wrote:
I don't need to see it first hand. I can read.


Unfortunately, you don't seem to be filtering out all the anti-American propaganda when you read.



Stevepax wrote:
Your willingness to use this type of weapon on a human being says everything about you. Everything!


What is wrong with using incendiaries????
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 06:50 pm
Quote:
Unfortunately, you don't seem to be filtering out all the anti-American propaganda when you read.


Of course we filter it out! That's what filters are for, to isolate the rare and valuable.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 07:25 pm
blatham wrote:
"themobaric"...isn't that a lovely word? It just dances off the tongue.



Here is an article about the thermobaric bazooka the Marines used at Fallujah:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/smaw-ne.htm

Quote:
The High Impulse Thermobaric [HIT] technology achieves higher pressure, temperature and duration levels than the regular SMAW warhead. The explosive fill material is normally a slurry of reactive metal and liquid fuels, optimized for enclosed spaces.

. . . .

In July 2005, an article in the Marine Corps Gazette concluded that it had been highly effective in the November 2004 battle for Fallujah. , edition: "Marines could employ blast weapons prior to entering houses that had become pillboxes, not homes. The economic cost of house replacement is not comparable to American lives... all battalions adopted blast techniques appropriate to entering a bunker, assuming you did not know if the bunker was manned. ... SMAW gunners became expert at determining which wall to shoot to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms. ... Due to the lack of penetrating power of the NE round, we found that our assaultmen had to first fire a dual-purpose rocket in order to create a hole in the wall or building. This blast was immediately followed by an NE round that would incinerate the target or literally level the structure."
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 08:35 pm
oralloy wrote:
blatham wrote:
"themobaric"...isn't that a lovely word? It just dances off the tongue.



Here is an article about the thermobaric bazooka the Marines used at Fallujah:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/smaw-ne.htm

Quote:
The High Impulse Thermobaric [HIT] technology achieves higher pressure, temperature and duration levels than the regular SMAW warhead. The explosive fill material is normally a slurry of reactive metal and liquid fuels, optimized for enclosed spaces.

. . . .

In July 2005, an article in the Marine Corps Gazette concluded that it had been highly effective in the November 2004 battle for Fallujah. , edition: "Marines could employ blast weapons prior to entering houses that had become pillboxes, not homes. The economic cost of house replacement is not comparable to American lives... all battalions adopted blast techniques appropriate to entering a bunker, assuming you did not know if the bunker was manned. ... SMAW gunners became expert at determining which wall to shoot to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms. ... Due to the lack of penetrating power of the NE round, we found that our assaultmen had to first fire a dual-purpose rocket in order to create a hole in the wall or building. This blast was immediately followed by an NE round that would incinerate the target or literally level the structure."


Sounds like a good plan to me.
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 01:59 am
Momma Angel wrote:
My point is this, if you hate somewhere you are so much, then why stay? If you can't offer solutions then go. That's my point.


DUH, WILBER. I WILL HAVE TO POST IN LARGE LETTERS SO THE VENOMOUS 'ANGEL' CAN READ IT. I DON'T LIVE IN THE US. I WOULD NOT LIVE THERE AGAIN FOR ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD.
DO YOU GET THAT? DO YOU KNOW WHERE BRITISH COLUMBIA IS, STUPIDO?
IT ISN'T PART OF THE U.S. DID YOU THINK IT WAS PART OF ALASKA?
YOU NEED A GEOGRAPHY LESSON.
GET A CLUE. And you all wonder why the rest of the world thinks Americans are shallow.........and rather dumb....... Laughing

The world needs more Canada!!!! YEAH!!
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 02:10 am
Stevepax wrote:
Thats horseshit MM. They all take our money, even our so called friends like Pakistan who are now harboring the guy that started all this.

By the way, just because you'd stop short of nukes, doesn't mean they'll consider that a limitation. Just like you think using chemical weapons on them is fine. Maybe they have soneone just like you who think winning at any cost is justified.

We're already using nukes on them in a way ... what do you call irradiated ammunition? Of course, I imagine that's fine with you also. Just because it's all over their landscape and affects their biology, what the hell. MM says whatever it takes to win.


I agree with all of your posts. I have been trying to pound the same thing into their brains, or what passes for brains, but I give up. You are right. America deserves what it gets, and if they get WP sprinkled on their bums you'll hear plenty of screeching. It's funny, isn't it, how these goons manage to disregard what the Pentagon says about WP? Interesting logic these 'able to not know' people display. Keep on keepin on!
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 03:24 am
Stevepax wrote:
We're already using nukes on them in a way ... what do you call irradiated ammunition?


I missed this before.

First of all, we haven't radiated any ammunition, though I presume you meant to say that we used radioactive ammunition.

And no, radioactive ammunition is NOT a nuclear weapon, period.

Were the radiation at a significant level, it would count as a radiological weapon. But it is not at a significant level, so it doesn't even count as that.

And finally, aside from the rounds that were fired against Iraqi tanks, it is unlikely that much of this extremely-low-radioactivity ammunition was used.


Practically everything you've ever said about weapons is completely incorrect.

You might want to consider withholding comment about weaponry until you get some notion what you are talking about.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 03:24 am
englishmajor wrote:
And you all wonder why the rest of the world thinks Americans are shallow.........and rather dumb....... Laughing


Sorry, but the world does not share your anti-American bigotry.



englishmajor wrote:
Stevepax wrote:
Thats horseshit MM. They all take our money, even our so called friends like Pakistan who are now harboring the guy that started all this.

By the way, just because you'd stop short of nukes, doesn't mean they'll consider that a limitation. Just like you think using chemical weapons on them is fine. Maybe they have soneone just like you who think winning at any cost is justified.

We're already using nukes on them in a way ... what do you call irradiated ammunition? Of course, I imagine that's fine with you also. Just because it's all over their landscape and affects their biology, what the hell. MM says whatever it takes to win.


I agree with all of your posts. I have been trying to pound the same thing into their brains, or what passes for brains, but I give up. You are right.


We are already aware that there are bad people out there who want to harm us.

That is why we are smashing about the planet killing and torturing people -- to eliminate the threat.



englishmajor wrote:
America deserves what it gets,


Nice to know you support targeting civilians.

But keep in mind the measures we'll keep taking to eliminate the threat, and the measures we'll keep taking to retaliate. You might not like the results of attacks on us so much when you consider the consequences of those attacks.



englishmajor wrote:
Interesting logic these 'able to not know' people display.


That could only be a description of people who try to pretend that WP is a chemical weapon.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 03:28 am
mysteryman wrote:
oralloy wrote:
blatham wrote:
"themobaric"...isn't that a lovely word? It just dances off the tongue.



Here is an article about the thermobaric bazooka the Marines used at Fallujah:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/smaw-ne.htm

Quote:
The High Impulse Thermobaric [HIT] technology achieves higher pressure, temperature and duration levels than the regular SMAW warhead. The explosive fill material is normally a slurry of reactive metal and liquid fuels, optimized for enclosed spaces.

. . . .

In July 2005, an article in the Marine Corps Gazette concluded that it had been highly effective in the November 2004 battle for Fallujah. , edition: "Marines could employ blast weapons prior to entering houses that had become pillboxes, not homes. The economic cost of house replacement is not comparable to American lives... all battalions adopted blast techniques appropriate to entering a bunker, assuming you did not know if the bunker was manned. ... SMAW gunners became expert at determining which wall to shoot to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms. ... Due to the lack of penetrating power of the NE round, we found that our assaultmen had to first fire a dual-purpose rocket in order to create a hole in the wall or building. This blast was immediately followed by an NE round that would incinerate the target or literally level the structure."


Sounds like a good plan to me.


They do sound like they are shaping up to be decent explosives.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 03:44 am
Quote:
The economic cost of house replacement is not comparable to American lives


I wonder if Trent Lott would give up that new house his friend Bush mentioned in exchange for the life of a kid from Kentucky?

Or for the life of an innocent Iraqi thermobarized by mistake?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 03:47 am
blatham wrote:
Quote:
Unfortunately, you don't seem to be filtering out all the anti-American propaganda when you read.


Of course we filter it out! That's what filters are for, to isolate the rare and valuable.


It wasn't your filtration abilities (if that's what it's called) that I was calling into question.

I can't say I understand your opposition to these weapons, but you aren't repeating the propaganda like some here do.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 03:50 am
blatham wrote:
Quote:
The economic cost of house replacement is not comparable to American lives


I wonder if Trent Lott would give up that new house his friend Bush mentioned in exchange for the life of a kid from Kentucky?

Or for the life of an innocent Iraqi thermobarized by mistake?


Hard to say. I didn't even know he had a new house.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 04:30 am
Quote:
I can't say I understand your opposition to these weapons,


There's a historical point where the arms trade went bigtime. Steel companies became huge and powerful corporate entitites with the railway builiding boom. The rails spread across europe, north america and elsewhere plus all the cars to move on those rails pushed the demand for steel by some factor you can probably imagine. But with the rails down and the cars built, that market reached saturation.

And whaddaya think those big steel corporations began marketing in order to create new demand? Cannon is the right answer. How marketed? Go to country X and tell them that country Y is about to buy cannon and so they sure as hell better get some too. Manufacture threat to create product demand. Justify your product and its marketing with the seductive "Well, if we don't do, someone else will."

Eisenhower, your ex-republican president, general, and former head of the allied forces in WW 2 gave you guys a warning when he left office. He understood that American militarization was a function NOT of threat but rather of the marketing of threat.

Does Phillips Tobacco wish that smoking by teens cease, even knowing how many it will kill? Does Northrup wish for peace?

My opposition is to the structural relationship between your government, its economy, and war. There's a reason why war is glorified in America in a manner which it presently is not in the rest of the western world.
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 07:30 pm
blatham wrote:
Quote:
I can't say I understand your opposition to these weapons,


There's a historical point where the arms trade went bigtime. Steel companies became huge and powerful corporate entitites with the railway builiding boom. The rails spread across europe, north america and elsewhere plus all the cars to move on those rails pushed the demand for steel by some factor you can probably imagine. But with the rails down and the cars built, that market reached saturation.

And whaddaya think those big steel corporations began marketing in order to create new demand? Cannon is the right answer. How marketed? Go to country X and tell them that country Y is about to buy cannon and so they sure as hell better get some too. Manufacture threat to create product demand. Justify your product and its marketing with the seductive "Well, if we don't do, someone else will."

Eisenhower, your ex-republican president, general, and former head of the allied forces in WW 2 gave you guys a warning when he left office. He understood that American militarization was a function NOT of threat but rather of the marketing of threat.

Does Phillips Tobacco wish that smoking by teens cease, even knowing how many it will kill? Does Northrup wish for peace?

My opposition is to the structural relationship between your government, its economy, and war. There's a reason why war is glorified in America in a manner which it presently is not in the rest of the western world.


Excellent reply! Right on. 'There's a reason why war is glorified in America in a manner which it presently is not in the rest of the western world.' I believe you are preaching to deaf ears, blatham. Keep trying, though. You may get through yet to the warmongers.
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 07:35 pm
'We are already aware that there are bad people out there who want to harm us.

That is why we are smashing about the planet killing and torturing people -- to eliminate the threat. '

oralloy, you have become THEM! Bad people who want to harm us? Paranoia. Suggest you see a shrink asap.

Your comments are amazingly childish and Bushist. Torturing people and killing will eliminate - what? Violence begets violence. Idiot.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 06:28 am
blatham wrote:
Quote:
I can't say I understand your opposition to these weapons,


There's a historical point where the arms trade went bigtime. Steel companies became huge and powerful corporate entitites with the railway builiding boom. The rails spread across europe, north america and elsewhere plus all the cars to move on those rails pushed the demand for steel by some factor you can probably imagine. But with the rails down and the cars built, that market reached saturation.

And whaddaya think those big steel corporations began marketing in order to create new demand? Cannon is the right answer. How marketed? Go to country X and tell them that country Y is about to buy cannon and so they sure as hell better get some too. Manufacture threat to create product demand. Justify your product and its marketing with the seductive "Well, if we don't do, someone else will."

Eisenhower, your ex-republican president, general, and former head of the allied forces in WW 2 gave you guys a warning when he left office. He understood that American militarization was a function NOT of threat but rather of the marketing of threat.

Does Phillips Tobacco wish that smoking by teens cease, even knowing how many it will kill? Does Northrup wish for peace?

My opposition is to the structural relationship between your government, its economy, and war. There's a reason why war is glorified in America in a manner which it presently is not in the rest of the western world.


I realize that the arms industry is driving weapons advances faster than they'd otherwise advance. But I don't see how they are driving war.

There've always been lots of wars.

And I don't see why having more-advanced weapons is a bad thing.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/10/2022 at 03:06:57