you know whats funny, we werent issued DU rounds during OIF II because the armor threat no longer existed like during the invasion. no more enemy tanks, no need for radioactive projectiles.
Me, too. What really gets me is people who choose to be mad that an army uses highly effective weapons that are not illegal.CameronPoe wrote:
I hate people eatıng wıth theır mouths open.Stingray24 wrote:
We already know you hate Israel. Anything else?CameronPoe wrote:
I wouldn't expect anythıng less from the cunts...
The world changes and so should and outdated set of guidelines along with it. its Kind of like Using the agreement at Gettysburg as a guideline.jonsimon wrote:
Not outlawed explictly and totally, yet. Incindiary weapons are banned by the geneva convetions, as are chemical weapons, two characteristics that phosphorus munitions display. Phosphorus is just the US loophole around the ban on napalm after Vietnam. So, depending on how far in denial they are, no, they are not banned. But any reasonable human being must concede they are banned by the Geneva Conventions.ATG wrote:
Are these types of munitions outlawed by international treaty?
If not, then oh well.
Maybe now people will stop messing with Israel...maybe I say
always keep your powder dry and never fire your rifle unless you make sure the rammer is no longer down the muzzle<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
The world changes and so should and outdated set of guidelines along with it. its Kind of like Using the agreement at Gettysburg as a guideline.jonsimon wrote:
Not outlawed explictly and totally, yet. Incindiary weapons are banned by the geneva convetions, as are chemical weapons, two characteristics that phosphorus munitions display. Phosphorus is just the US loophole around the ban on napalm after Vietnam. So, depending on how far in denial they are, no, they are not banned. But any reasonable human being must concede they are banned by the Geneva Conventions.ATG wrote:
Are these types of munitions outlawed by international treaty?
If not, then oh well.
I wasn't complaınıng - I was just statıng how I never expected anythıng less of them: brutally heavy-handed collectıve punıshment.Stingray24 wrote:
Me, too. What really gets me is people who choose to be mad that an army uses highly effective weapons that are not illegal.CameronPoe wrote:
I hate people eatıng wıth theır mouths open.Stingray24 wrote:
We already know you hate Israel. Anything else?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-10-28 12:35:53)
LOL Don't hold your breath...DesertFox423 wrote:
Maybe now people will stop messing with Israel...maybe I say
Apparently, they would rather keep poking the badger in his den. Knowing he will rake them with his claws because he just wants to live in peace in his den. Yet they keep coming back for more. I'm surprised the badger hasn't torn them a new one yet.CameronPoe wrote:
LOL Don't hold your breath...DesertFox423 wrote:
Maybe now people will stop messing with Israel...maybe I say
Exactly fucking right. Keep driving the point there iphtnax.iphtnax wrote:
The use of phosphorous isn't banned by the Genava Conventions specifically. It is illegal to use it in civilian areas but not against military targets.
However, if a civilian population allows a terrorist group to base itself out of a civilian area, it ceases to be a civilian area and can be attacked. It's pure logic, lost no doubt on the majority of the children who use this forum.
It's like when Muslims use a mosque to fire on US troops - the moment the mosque is used for military purposes, it ceases to be a mosque and becomes a valid military target.
I suppose you can't really empathıse wıth the fact that the arabs WILL NEVER gıve up because the USA has never been ınvaded. You would change your tune at least slıghtly ıf the US had suffered sımılar ın the recent past. I doubt you'd sıt ıdly by ıf ıt happened to the US. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you would be lıke those French that let the Germans march through Parıs unhındered and waıt for someone else to baıl them out.Stingray24 wrote:
Apparently, they would rather keep poking the badger in his den. Knowing he will rake them with his claws because he just wants to live in peace in his den. Yet they keep coming back for more. I'm surprised the badger hasn't torn them a new one yet.CameronPoe wrote:
LOL Don't hold your breath...DesertFox423 wrote:
Maybe now people will stop messing with Israel...maybe I say
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-10-28 12:51:29)
That is completely and absolutely untrue.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
get real man, we never supplied saddam with NBC weapons. look towards countries like france that supplied that technologygolgoj4 wrote:
Well if you sell it to the guy knowing hes gonna use it....{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank wrote:
Sucks for those people, but war is war, its unforgiving, and bombs dont pick who is next to their targets.
I have a feeling that some ass hat is gonna call it out and blame this on the U.S. - Obviously we were responsible for their use of those weapons during a war because were responsible for everything
See: Osama Bin Laden.
See: N. Korean Nuclear reactors sold to them by US company (rummy was on the board)
See: Iraqi kurds gassed by weapons given to Saddam by US.
I gotta say, maybe we should just keep out shit for ourselves? Oh wait, business would never stand for that.
My point is our weapons export policies will always make it a valid question if we are part of someone military supply chain.
The US, France, Switzerland, Britain and West Germany provided Iraq with chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. Denying the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons is simply untrue.
The US supplied him with bacillus anthracis (basis of Anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (botulism). Those are chemical weapons. A 1994 report from the US senate claimed that 70 shipments of Anthrax and other pathogenic agents were delivered over the course of the Iran-Iraq war. Whilst none of the agents provided to Saddam were in a weaponised form, they were very close to being weaponised and the US also sold him all the equipment necessary to weaponise them.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-10-28 12:55:07)
I don't understand what "it" is here.CameronPoe wrote:
You would change your tune at least slıghtly ıf the US had suffered sımılar ın the recent past. I doubt you'd sıt ıdly by ıf ıt happened to the US.
as far as I remember, it was private US companies that did that. but regardless I retract my earlierBertster7 wrote:
That is completely and absolutely untrue.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
get real man, we never supplied saddam with NBC weapons. look towards countries like france that supplied that technologygolgoj4 wrote:
Well if you sell it to the guy knowing hes gonna use it....
See: Osama Bin Laden.
See: N. Korean Nuclear reactors sold to them by US company (rummy was on the board)
See: Iraqi kurds gassed by weapons given to Saddam by US.
I gotta say, maybe we should just keep out shit for ourselves? Oh wait, business would never stand for that.
My point is our weapons export policies will always make it a valid question if we are part of someone military supply chain.
The US, France, Switzerland, Britain and West Germany provided Iraq with chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. Denying the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons is simply untrue.
The US supplied him with bacillus anthracis (basis of Anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (botulism). Those are chemical weapons. A 1994 report from the US senate claimed that 70 shipments of Anthrax and other pathogenic agents. Whilst none of the agents provided to Saddam were in a weaponised form, they were very close to being weaponised and the US also sold him all the equipment necessary to weaponise them.
statement.
but I do know for certain that France was Iraq's main supplier of arms after the Soviet Union
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-10-28 12:57:57)
Example of ıt: A new natıon of Mexıcana gettıng created ın south-west USA. You guys are all so up ın arms about Mexıcans that ıt baffles me how you can't draw the comparıson between that and the Zıonıst ınflux to Palestıne ın the early part of thıs century. Mınutemen FGS? 'Spanısh overtakıng Englısh' bullshıt?DesertFox423 wrote:
I don't understand what "it" is here.CameronPoe wrote:
You would change your tune at least slıghtly ıf the US had suffered sımılar ın the recent past. I doubt you'd sıt ıdly by ıf ıt happened to the US.
Trade 'workıng hard' wıth 'stealıng property' ın the analogy however.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-10-28 12:58:47)
a munition that reduces collateral damage! terror of terrors!! what will the human-shield users have left to complain about now?
Okay, nevermind, Cameron. You were talking about some invasion of the US before and now you just said something about Mexicans in a comment that included your favorite word "zionist."
I am such amazed about the lack of any empathy and the profoundness of showing ignorance as a tool to prove a point.OpsChief wrote:
a munition that reduces collateral damage! terror of terrors!! what will the human-shield users have left to complain about now?
I'll put ıt lıke thıs: Wıll you stop lookıng for Osama, the man responsıble for 9/11, because ıt has been a whıle now sınce 9/11? The questıon corresponds to askıng Arabs ıf they'll stop harassıng Israel because of what they dıd and contınue to do to Palestınıans. When an ınjustıce or perceıved ınjustıce contınues wıthout rectıfıcatıon or the servıng of justıce, the vıolated party wıll rarely stop theır quest for justıce no matter how much further grıef they have to endure. USA has lost 1000s of soldıers sınce 9/11 on saıd quest for ınstance.DesertFox423 wrote:
Okay, nevermind, Cameron. You were talking about some invasion of the US before and now you just said something about Mexicans in a comment that included your favorite word "zionist."
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-10-28 13:15:48)
The point you seem to have missed is that ANY complaint about ANY munition being humane or inhumane is ludicrous - the scale of collateral destruction by a particular munition may be valid but limiting damage to the exact target seems relatively humane doesn't it?bogo24dk wrote:
I am such amazed about the lack of any empathy and the profoundness of showing ignorance as a tool to prove a point.OpsChief wrote:
a munition that reduces collateral damage! terror of terrors!! what will the human-shield users have left to complain about now?
BADGER THAT GOT PWNED BY HEZBULLAH.Stingray24 wrote:
Apparently, they would rather keep poking the badger in his den. Knowing he will rake them with his claws because he just wants to live in peace in his den. Yet they keep coming back for more. I'm surprised the badger hasn't torn them a new one yet.CameronPoe wrote:
LOL Don't hold your breath...DesertFox423 wrote:
Maybe now people will stop messing with Israel...maybe I say
After all advanced weapons that isreal has, after all the funding it gets. LOL
Last edited by mafia996630 (2006-10-28 13:26:37)
They dıd get royally pwned. They even concede so themselves. Ehud Olmert ıs on borrowed tıme.mafia996630 wrote:
BADGER THAT GOT PWNED BY HEZBULLAH.Stingray24 wrote:
Apparently, they would rather keep poking the badger in his den. Knowing he will rake them with his claws because he just wants to live in peace in his den. Yet they keep coming back for more. I'm surprised the badger hasn't torn them a new one yet.CameronPoe wrote:
LOL Don't hold your breath...
After all advaned weapons that isreal has, after all the funding it gets. LOL
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-10-28 13:24:10)
I cannot empathize, that's correct. We've been fortunate not to be invaded. Mainly because of the strength of our military. I refuse to sympathize with the Palestinians who have deluded themselves into thinking the land is there's and needlessly fight on. IF the Palestinians had been invaded, I'd express sympathy. However, as I've stated in other posts, Israel has a much longer claim to that land before the Palestinians showed up. In ancient times, Israel was carried from her homeland by her captors and returned numerous times. In modern times she returned in 1947. No matter how much land Israel gives up, you said yourself, the Palestinians (arabs if you will) will not be satisfied until Israel is gone completely. Peace is only a reloading period for Israel's enemies and as such is not true peace. So I encourage Israel to be ever vigilant and not give up her security for a fake peace deal with her enemies.CameronPoe wrote:
I suppose you can't really empathıse wıth the fact that the arabs WILL NEVER gıve up because the USA has never been ınvaded. You would change your tune at least slıghtly ıf the US had suffered sımılar ın the recent past. I doubt you'd sıt ıdly by ıf ıt happened to the US. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you would be lıke those French that let the Germans march through Parıs unhındered and waıt for someone else to baıl them out.Stingray24 wrote:
Apparently, they would rather keep poking the badger in his den. Knowing he will rake them with his claws because he just wants to live in peace in his den. Yet they keep coming back for more. I'm surprised the badger hasn't torn them a new one yet.
Last edited by Stingray24 (2006-10-28 13:28:20)
True, but i think of these terrorists like gangs. If a big gang comes up to your house/whatever and says let us use it for ouroperations. You're not exactly going to say no (ok, Mr. Internet Tough guy, maybe YOU will becuase this is the internet and you are the ultimate man on the internet, but i'm talking in real life), unless you want your head to be chopped off or something similairly gruesome. Sometimes i feel these guys have no option but to let the guys in, or die, the terrorists really are dirty bastards. I guess you can't blame them, how else are you supposed to fight such a technically advanced army.iphtnax wrote:
The use of phosphorous isn't banned by the Genava Conventions specifically. It is illegal to use it in civilian areas but not against military targets.
However, if a civilian population allows a terrorist group to base itself out of a civilian area, it ceases to be a civilian area and can be attacked. It's pure logic, lost no doubt on the majority of the children who use this forum.
It's like when Muslims use a mosque to fire on US troops - the moment the mosque is used for military purposes, it ceases to be a mosque and becomes a valid military target.
So remember, it's not always that they allow the terrorists to be there, it's that they usually have no choice. Ok, yeah, there are the number that openly welcome and house them. But they don't have a choice either way.
i'm against any kind of wars but let me tell you... the geneva convention treaty is the biggest BS i ever saw.Geneva Conventions
if it's a war it's a war... don't make rules for it... it's suposed be bloody, violent and unfair... this BS always reminds me of an asterix comic where the britains always stop their fighs at 5pm for tea and since the fog would rise afterwards they would only fight in the next day... get real... it's a war... if you don't like them don't make them.
Last edited by dalexa (2006-10-28 13:40:01)
geneva conventions are good when both parties involved decide to follow em.dalexa wrote:
i'm against any kind of wars but let me tell you... the geneva convention treaty is the biggest BS i ever saw.Geneva Conventions
if it's a war it's a war... don't make rules for it... it's suposed be bloody, violent and unfair... this BS always reminds me of an asterix comic where the britains stoped at 5pm for tea and since the fog would rise afterwards they would only fight in the next day... get real... it's a war... if you don't like them don't make them.
name, rank and serial number.
it would be good if our enemies had POW camps.