It's easy and trendy not to.
Thats why I do.
Thats why I do.
lets just have a civil war, dems vs reps. It shuld be a landslide because on these forums all dems are apparently pathetic weak homosexuals who cant do anything but dream about rainbows and "cutting and running." Whereas reps are burly aryan combat machines who culd wipe out 10 democrats in a single blow.
< Puts on his wife-beater my boots, hops into v8 jacked up dueled off superswamper 4x4 and drives off to kill me some hippies > That's my rep impression, hardy har har. Get real folks.
< Puts on his wife-beater my boots, hops into v8 jacked up dueled off superswamper 4x4 and drives off to kill me some hippies > That's my rep impression, hardy har har. Get real folks.
Last edited by liquix (2006-11-11 23:28:28)
[b]I have scepticisms about 'dirty bombs'. It's totally hypothetical and no-one really knows whether it would work.stryyker wrote:
Touche.
But one thing bothers me. Do the Democrats really think that an ICBM would reach the country? I mean, there are the countermeasures that we know about (Patriot, PLD, Sats) and the ones that most people dont know about (classified )
I think dirty bombs are the real threat.
My own knowledge of nuclear physics says no. If you have <5g uranium then it radiates and disperses so quick that you can't really do anything with it. 5g or more and you have a nuclear bomb.
wiki wrote:
Because a terrorist dirty bomb is unlikely to cause many deaths, many do not consider this to be a weapon of mass destruction. Its purpose would presumably be to create psychological, not physical, harm through ignorance, mass panic, and terror (for this reason they are sometimes called "weapons of mass disruption"). Additionally, decontamination of the affected area might require considerable time and expense, rendering affected areas partly unusable and causing economic damage.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Sigh, This is how US foriegn policy works.
Scenario 1: A state actor (N. Korea) developes a nuke. They are dumb enough to use it against the US. (With what ICBM, I have no clue, lets pretend the Taepodong-2 actually works). The missle hits the US. People die. Everyone cries. We turn N. Korea into a parking lot. End of story.
Scenario 2: A non-state actor threatens a nuke. We tell all states believed to harbor terrorists that we will hold them responsible if a terrorist organization uses nukes on US soil. Terrorists are stupid. Nuke goes off. Again, we cry, and then we make some parking lots.
in the meantime, it probably would be a good idea to arm some of our allied nations like Japan with their own nuclear arsenal. The more states in the system with nuclear weapons, the more stable the system becomes.
Scenario 1: A state actor (N. Korea) developes a nuke. They are dumb enough to use it against the US. (With what ICBM, I have no clue, lets pretend the Taepodong-2 actually works). The missle hits the US. People die. Everyone cries. We turn N. Korea into a parking lot. End of story.
Scenario 2: A non-state actor threatens a nuke. We tell all states believed to harbor terrorists that we will hold them responsible if a terrorist organization uses nukes on US soil. Terrorists are stupid. Nuke goes off. Again, we cry, and then we make some parking lots.
in the meantime, it probably would be a good idea to arm some of our allied nations like Japan with their own nuclear arsenal. The more states in the system with nuclear weapons, the more stable the system becomes.
Of those mentioned, the Patriot and the PLD can only destroy a nuke it it's launch stage (neither can hit a missile once it has cleared the atmosphere). The sats, might be able to hit the missile, but have only been used successfully in extremely controlled test situations. If the sats miss, then it's time to bend over and kiss your ass good bye, cause nothing can stop an ICBM once it begins reentry. There might be some classified tech out there that could stop one, but this is one of those technologies that I think we would know about if it was working if for no other reason than it would be a deterrent to other countries.stryyker wrote:
Touche.
But one thing bothers me. Do the Democrats really think that an ICBM would reach the country? I mean, there are the countermeasures that we know about (Patriot, PLD, Sats) and the ones that most people dont know about (classified )
I think dirty bombs are the real threat.
Not nesscecarily. By nature, counterforce weaponry is destablizing. To let people know we had a way to destroy incoming weapons, would be to let them know we had the luxury of attacking someone without fear of retaliation.mcgid1 wrote:
Of those mentioned, the Patriot and the PLD can only destroy a nuke it it's launch stage (neither can hit a missile once it has cleared the atmosphere). The sats, might be able to hit the missile, but have only been used successfully in extremely controlled test situations. If the sats miss, then it's time to bend over and kiss your ass good bye, cause nothing can stop an ICBM once it begins reentry. There might be some classified tech out there that could stop one, but this is one of those technologies that I think we would know about if it was working if for no other reason than it would be a deterrent to other countries.stryyker wrote:
Touche.
But one thing bothers me. Do the Democrats really think that an ICBM would reach the country? I mean, there are the countermeasures that we know about (Patriot, PLD, Sats) and the ones that most people dont know about (classified )
I think dirty bombs are the real threat.
After 9/11 everyone was aware that our nation was very much at risk, so that trumps the whole useless idea of the Department of Homeland Security. If it was needed we would have created one after the tragedy at Pearl Harbor.Des.Kmal wrote:
To everyone that replied to my posts:
I have seen what the Liberal Democrats do. They want to get out of this war that they(terrorists) started. After 9/11, how could you not want to fight back?
All I see is Liberals wanting to pull out and to have peace. Well, this isnt a perfect world, and peace isnt going to come with words. Thats just not the way it is, Im sorry.
And another thing. This is the most anti-America America I have ever seen. I dont understand it.
We had a huge tragedies and we are at war now, why not support your damn country?
As for the battles in Afghanistan fighting the mess of extremists over there, it was needed. Clinton should have done something about that country during his term. This was a "war" that was justified for the most part.
Iraq is where people start to lose faith. What has REALLY been accomplished? Why shouldn't we pull out? Why can't we plead the UNs help?
Iraq was a lost cause before it started because of the way we started it. Daddy Bush put Saddam in power so that he kept that area under control. He kept it under control by the only means he knew how - killing people. Isn't that what we're doing now?
No one in America is anti-America...everyone supports what has been done good for the country, but not what is being done bad for it.
Bwah? Saddam came to power in 1979. Bush wasn't elected president until 1989.SysTray wrote:
Daddy Bush put Saddam in power
Which is why Bush has taken action against Iran. Oh, wait...................Des.Kmal wrote:
yeah, because the republicans would do something about it. democrats wouldnt... or do much. maybe cry to the UN but not retaliate.
I meant to say left him in power.Elamdri wrote:
Bwah? Saddam came to power in 1979. Bush wasn't elected president until 1989.SysTray wrote:
Daddy Bush put Saddam in power
Oh, ok, that makes more senseSysTray wrote:
I meant to say left him in power.Elamdri wrote:
Bwah? Saddam came to power in 1979. Bush wasn't elected president until 1989.SysTray wrote:
Daddy Bush put Saddam in power
interestingly
Hmm...Bush the master statesman apparently never had a sit-down with his son.Wikipedia wrote:
In explaining to Gulf War veterans why he chose not to pursue the war further, President Bush said, "Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power — America in an Arab land — with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."
Yeah, that little excerpt is genius. Daddy loves the oil $$ though
It is not genius, it is uninformed . May I suggest a simple Google search of 1441?SysTray wrote:
Yeah, that little excerpt is genius. Daddy loves the oil $$ though
Must I point out that things changed after 9-11?Elamdri wrote:
Oh, ok, that makes more senseSysTray wrote:
I meant to say left him in power.Elamdri wrote:
Bwah? Saddam came to power in 1979. Bush wasn't elected president until 1989.
interestinglyHmm...Bush the master statesman apparently never had a sit-down with his son.Wikipedia wrote:
In explaining to Gulf War veterans why he chose not to pursue the war further, President Bush said, "Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power — America in an Arab land — with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."
The message; we can go to any country and dispose any leader if we think your a threat.
Now, it may have been an unwise and bold move, but has anybody proved us wrong?
The point is we don't want anyone to try and prove us wrong, because that's more money we have to spend and more troops we have to sacrifice the lives of in order to prove a big tough guy point.
Domestic affairs first, overthrow dictators that are obviously there for a reason second.
Domestic affairs first, overthrow dictators that are obviously there for a reason second.
Also ATG, how can a message by the President himself be misinformed on his own actions? The excerpt I was referring to was a direct quote from HW Bush.
Your question is a little mangled.SysTray wrote:
Also ATG, how can a message by the President himself be misinformed on his own actions? The excerpt I was referring to was a direct quote from HW Bush.
I know, I remember that war well and how all the liberals called HW a sissy 'cause he didn't go all the way.
1441 gave W the authorization to go all the way. Thats why HW said what he did. W had the authorization, and the will, and thats why he's a bad guy, because he actually did it.
My question seemed direct enough for me. I was wondering how a direct quote could be misinformed.
As for him being a sissy and doing the wrong thing...I don't think that at all. HW actually knew what he was doing and could justify it well. Junior stole the keys from his daddy and crashed the car shortly afterwards. (that might be a bad metaphor, I'll know when I get some sleep...it's quarter of 4 here)
As for him being a sissy and doing the wrong thing...I don't think that at all. HW actually knew what he was doing and could justify it well. Junior stole the keys from his daddy and crashed the car shortly afterwards. (that might be a bad metaphor, I'll know when I get some sleep...it's quarter of 4 here)
first why bush sr didnt "go all the way". iran was, is and probably will be for awhile a threat to the middle east. iraq has acted as a buffer to keep them away from the rest of the middle east and their oil for awhile. we cannot allow a power vaccum to take place and have the iranians come in. im not going to go into alot of details, because its really long and drawn out....if you want go to www.cia.gov go to the FOIA section and look it up.....
the other reason we are there, you could call preventitive maintinence. like on your car; we are there so its easy for them to attack americans. if were not there then they will attack america. simple enough.
the nuke thing.....its all speculative. we supposedly have aegis cruisers hangin out by north korea ready to zap anything that might head our way. i would imagine its the same deal around iran also. ive read reports that talk about that radar system like its fuckin magic, but we will never know for sure. the SDI initiative of reagans era is iffy at best. at least that is what we are told, either way we will not know until something like that happens, hopefully it never will............
the other reason we are there, you could call preventitive maintinence. like on your car; we are there so its easy for them to attack americans. if were not there then they will attack america. simple enough.
the nuke thing.....its all speculative. we supposedly have aegis cruisers hangin out by north korea ready to zap anything that might head our way. i would imagine its the same deal around iran also. ive read reports that talk about that radar system like its fuckin magic, but we will never know for sure. the SDI initiative of reagans era is iffy at best. at least that is what we are told, either way we will not know until something like that happens, hopefully it never will............
I heard the Dems have already passed on highly confidential nuclear bomb making technology to Iran in exchange for a promise from them not to attack Israel....
LOL. Given the fact that the majority of people in America have voted for this America one could quite possibly argue that you are the one being anti-American.Des.Kmal wrote:
This is the most anti-America America I have ever seen. I don't understand it.
"zomg, dems in office. we gon die!"
give it up.
give it up.
my head hurts now, and it's not the hangoverCameronPoe wrote:
LOL. Given the fact that the majority of people in America have voted for this America one could quite possibly argue that you are the one being anti-American.Des.Kmal wrote:
This is the most anti-America America I have ever seen. I don't understand it.