A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Simulators
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

An example for you all to look up to



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old April 2nd 05, 04:15 PM
John Wallace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steve Smith wrote:
> The depleted-uranium claim is specious, AFAIK. We have only one weap that
> uses it: the 30mm Gatling gun on the nose of the A-10 "Warthog" tank buster.
> Note that altho we used A-10s in Gulf War I (against the Repub Guard's
> T-72s), we never deployed them during Op Iraq Freedom. Moreover, DU isn't
> radioactive, so it's unlikely to cause cancer.


This happened in the Gulf War, and well over 300 tons were fired, both
by A-10s and by tanks. An A-10 round was 300g of solid U-238, and a tank
round was 4,500g.

There is no need for something to be radioactive in order to cause
cancer. In any case, as you know the warheads use Uranium-238 which is a
"fertile" isotope, converting readily to (radioactive) plutonium, or to
(radioactive) uranium oxide (the problem in Iraq)
Ads
  #92  
Old April 2nd 05, 04:17 PM
John Wallace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Byron Forbes wrote:

> To me, this is complete bull****. NATO is in IRAQ to remove a madman in
> the name of self defence - this is a legitimate reason anyway. Unfortunately
> probably most of the reason NATO is there is for U.S. retaliation for 911 -
> and Iraq fundamentaly had nothing to do with 911.
>
> The message is simple - allow yourself to be represented by a madman
> (Hussein) and this is what will happen. Unfortunately this message is
> polluted with political agendas and the complete bull**** notion that NATO
> is in Iraq to do the Iraqis a big favour - utter bull****.


- NATO didn't go into Iraq, the so-called "coalition" did

- The Iraqi people didn't allow themselves to be represented by the
Ba'ath party - the CIA put them there and the people had no choice. Now
the US took him away and put someone else there - if I was an Iraqi I
ight be more than a little concerned that he would also upset them, and
a load of us would get slaughtered again in the sake of our own freedom.
  #93  
Old April 2nd 05, 04:22 PM
John Wallace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mitch_A wrote:

> Just about ANY country you post to the internet from can almost
> directly thank the US for its freedom.


Why then is the US so universally despised? What the US sees as "help"
helps only the US.

Read about George Kennan, read about Zbigniew Brzezinski. If you don't
understand the people to whom your government listens, how can their
actions be interpreted?
  #94  
Old April 2nd 05, 04:25 PM
John Wallace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

David G Fisher wrote:
>
> A fantastic reminder of the lies.
>
> http://www.peacecandy.com/gwbush/remindus/
>
> "They have weapons of mass destruction......that is what this war was
> about.....is about."


A good reminder - looks like the media are our Pavlov.
  #95  
Old April 2nd 05, 05:14 PM
Mitch_A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

So youre telling me people dont want freedom? You dont see how absurd that
sounds? Of course the oppressive regime doesnt want freedom for its people
but to say the people dont want freedom is a giant leap adn to me
ridiculous..

Mitch


"John Wallace" > wrote in > Mitch, this slaughter has
NOTHING to do with a so-called freedom that
> these countries did not wish for.



  #96  
Old April 3rd 05, 12:57 AM
MartyU
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

So if the oppressed people of the world want freedom from the previously
American supported dictator, they'll just have to accept the death and
destruction that the American military will impose...to make them free.

Marty

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0705-05.htm

Mitch_A wrote:
> So youre telling me people dont want freedom? You dont see how absurd that
> sounds? Of course the oppressive regime doesnt want freedom for its people
> but to say the people dont want freedom is a giant leap adn to me
> ridiculous..
>
> Mitch
>
>
> "John Wallace" > wrote in > Mitch, this slaughter has
> NOTHING to do with a so-called freedom that
>
>>these countries did not wish for.

>
>
>

  #97  
Old April 3rd 05, 10:31 AM
John Wallace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The "freedom" that you talk about is (as these people will see it) an US
installed regime, with a US installed puppet president, in search of oil
for the benefit of the US.

They've been bombed by the US, starved by the US, then bombed again by
the US. They were told a pack of lies about needing to die because they
had WMDs, they had WMDs used against them and are dying of cancer, and
we expect them to be happy when we say "trust us, it'll all be okay".

As for the freedom, it comes with strings - embrace also the US
free-market economics. Aka, drop your pants and bend over. Look what it
did to Indonesia, look at Argentina and Brazil, look at Russia - these
countries were financially raped by us when their markets were opened.
Is it any wonder they question the desirability of our "freedom".

Let's be clear, Saddam was a monster, but if we're getting all misty
eyed about the "choice" we're giving the Iraqis, let's actually give
THEM the choice.

Mitch_A wrote:
> So youre telling me people dont want freedom? You dont see how absurd that
> sounds? Of course the oppressive regime doesnt want freedom for its people
> but to say the people dont want freedom is a giant leap adn to me
> ridiculous..
>
> Mitch
>
>
> "John Wallace" > wrote in > Mitch, this slaughter has
> NOTHING to do with a so-called freedom that
>
>>these countries did not wish for.

>
>
>

  #98  
Old April 3rd 05, 11:19 PM
Randy Magruder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Wallace wrote:

> Randy Magruder wrote:
> > Sorry dude, as of yesterday, I'm done with this useless discussion.
> > I'm staying on sims from today on.

>
> Or, "crap, I have no argument to that so I'll sprint for the moral
> high ground"


I'll be happy to take this conversation with you to private e-mail or
anywhere else. Don't assume that just because I choose to try to get
back to talking racing sims here (I know, the horror!). You know my
e-mail address. If you actually want to debate this you know where to
reach me.

Randy
  #99  
Old April 3rd 05, 11:21 PM
Randy Magruder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Wallace wrote:

> Randy Magruder wrote:
>
> > History didn't begin when you woke up this morning. Why don't you
> > actually go back and read the transcript of Bush's 2002 State of the
> > Union speech. You'll find a LOT more there than WMD.

>
> The legal right to go to war is nothing to do with Bush's SOU
> address. It is solely to do with the UN resolutions, and whether or
> not Iraq possessed WMD. It doesn't matter if Bush is ****ed off that
> Saddam drives a Japanese car, or prefers Pepsi over Coke, no WMD =
> illegal war.
>
> Bush can practice all the revisionist history he wants and cite a
> bajillion other reasons - that doesn't give them meaning.


John, while you're looking up my private e-mail address to continue
this, you might also read the definition of "Ceasefire agreement".

Later. I won't answer any more of your posts HERE

Randy
  #100  
Old April 4th 05, 12:54 AM
Dave Henrie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> no WMD = illegal war.
>


Rather, no WMD = umpopular war. The violation of the Cease Fire
agreements signed after the first Gulf war were all the justification the
USA needed to launch an attack. In addition, the failure to comply with a
whole mess of UN resolutions also gave grounds for war. Finally did not
the UN itself authorize force with numerous security council resolutions
<what does "serious consequences" mean? Spanking Sadam?>? Granted the so-
called final authority was never voted on, but prior votes and resolutions
more than authorized the assault.
I find it curious that the supposedly bankrupt state of Iraq, cruelly
suffering at the hands of UN and thus US sanctions since we all know the
USA runs the UN thus the US could ask and receive the final vote at any
time and the result would be a unanimous result, could not feed it's
people, yet could build dozens of gold lavatoried castles for Sadam. I
also find it curious that the countries opposed to the 'final
authorization' vote also were countries that seemed to be on the receiving
end of the oil for food bribes. I find it odd that close to 10BILLION $$
managed to end up, not in the mouths of starving Iraqi children, but the
pockets of French, Russian, & German & Iraqi businessmen and diplomats
(strangely enough, Haliburton seems to have not enjoyed that windfall). I
find it curious that despite UN weapons sanctions, French and Russian
weapons of recent purchase were found inside Iraq. I find it odd that
Momar Kadafi suddenly became a scaredy-cat. I find it confusing that the
people of Lebannon found their voice after years of Syrian occupation or
Egypt allowing democratic voting or even the real enemy, Saudi Arabi
agreeing to <Shudder> local elections!! . I find it merely convienant
that the country located next to Iraq during the years and years of hide
and seek between the Iraqi goverment and the UN weapons inspectors, also
shared a similar Bathist goverment. I find it downright odd how many
Iraqis are still being killed by those who are neither American nor Iraqi
themselves. I further find it confusing that of close to 2 dozen armed
conflicts currently simmering around the globe...nearly all include Muslims
as one of the armed combatants. Surely the Muslims of Khasmir do not fight
for the Palestinians? Do the Muslims of Sri Lanka kidnap children to breed
fighters so they can liberate Palestine? Do the Muslim Arabs of Sudan
practice genocide upon Black Sudanese for the defense of Islam or the
aquistion of the Sudanese oil fields? Do the Muslim fighters of the
Phillipines care one whit about Israel's continued existance? Do the
Muslim extremists bombing in Malaysia take an oath to defend the
Palestinians? Do the Muslim Chechans stand and fight and bomb and kill and
stab Russian school children merely to call attention to the suffering of
the poor poor Palestinians? Did the Palestinian leaders and widow of
Arafat fight over the estate of poor ol Yasser for the few mere pennies he
accrued leading one of the poorest non-states in the world, or was he rich
beyond the wealth of all his people combined?

See John...I told ya I can be paranoid...

dave henrie
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.