 |
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dry
Resistance is futile. I know, I've heard that before 
MtG, you do not justify their death by being on the wrong side, defending a wrong cause, you justify their death by being weaker. Not even by beeing part of the risk they accepted to take by resisting. No, for you: they resisted, they deserve to die.
May I remind you the definition of fascism?
Fascism is the rule of power.
'Because I am the strongest' is enough to justify all fascists actions.
I haven't seen much other justifications in your posts. |
You assume I'm even interested in "justification."
I'm simply describing to you reality on the ground. "Justification" is an issue for pseudomoral mental masturbation on the part of those who have the luxuries of time, safety, and distance. When you're in the field with a job to do, you do your job with the best tools available, then you move on.
You see, the soldier's view is much more intimate and pragmatic. It doesn't matter if their death is "justified," "unjustified" or any other term you want to use. What matters is they're where you want to be, or they're where you don't want them to be, and your job is to correct that situation. Now if they have the good sense to leave in time, better for them, and generally less hassle for you. If they don't have the good sense to leave, then you remove them.
Last edited by MichaeltheGreat on 06-08-2003 at 00:35
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dis
|
 |
Las Vegas, Nevada
Feb 2000
time: 21:30
|
|
actually I should note that after 9/11, I think the threat of domestic terrorism has gone down. That's just a hunch. But I think 9/11 even affected the most rabid anti-goverment whacko.
edit: I forgot about the Anthrax attacks. That was most certainly domestic terrorism.
I have a hunch the guy did it to prove a point. And scare the goverment into taking steps to inprove security against bio attacks.
Last edited by Dis on 06-08-2003 at 00:54
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gopher
The Euros got rid of theirs a while back, when the WHO got involved. As for the rest, they got it from Russia, who secretly split their WHO alloted smallpox sample in half, and began to breed smallpox, starting in 75 with the creation of Biopreparat. Russia has admitted giving samples to India and China, and recent NYT reports have indicated that Iraq recieved some from the USSR and the USA (the USA during the Iran-Iraq war). The WHO still maintains that the rest of these samples are virtually all weapons-grade, and thus not self-perpetuating. |
hi ,
negative , the french have told in 2001 that they had a small stock to make vaccins , the belgians have a stock in what is supposed to be one of the worlds leading labs on tropical stuff , and the uk did not deny in a courtcase earlier this year with a human test subject , ...
the dutch have vaccins for each and everyone of the people who live there together with luxembourg , ..... these two made it in secret from the cow variant , .....
the italians are working on a vaccin also , rumour has it so are the spanish , .....
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gopher
|
|
I eat my own poop
Dec 1999
time: 00:30
|
|
All right! A (somewhat) branching thread! Kick ass!
As for you, panag, where did you hear this?
Virtually all sources say that besides the two official sources, only NK and Iraq.
Read it here , its the washington post.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Slowwhand, MtG or The Diplomat must have missed that post, so I'll quote it again:
Thanks. |
I was so upset about the issue I had to go out to Starbucks and grab a frappucino. 
I really didn't bother to reply because it's a silly-assed comparison, no offense. Why not compare it to nuking Baghdad or Washinton DC?
Chemical agents are area effect weapons, meant to be employed against a strategic area (supply depot, airfield), and they're also internationally banned. On the other side of the question, it seems like you're quibbling over whether we should have killed them with a larger concentration of conventional high explosive ordnance, or just killed them the way we did.
RPG's are now popular as anti-infantry weapons, as a sort of poor man's artillery. One of the RPG casualties we took in Somalia lost an arm, a leg, was blinded and made deaf by the concussion effects from the blast, and had 2nd degree burns over 30% of his body.
What do you think happens when a tank or an IFV gets fatally hit? An aircraft gets hit by a SAM? Burn injuries and deaths due to burn injuries are very common in modern war. Is that particularly worse than being gutted by a bayonet and lying in the sun all day, a la the Napoleonic wars? Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but at least we end wars quickly nowadays, so the overall numbers of casualties are far less.
In planning for war, we expect the enemy to employ every means at his disposal, hence a lot of concern going into Iraq about suiting up and being prepared for possible gas attacks. We make a priority of defending against the threat, and of eliminating the potential threat through massive application of force and mobility.
Do we like our buddies getting killed? Obviously not. Do we like our own side getting killed? Aside from the very occasional chickenshit who might have it coming, obviously not. But as soldiers, we're engaged in the business of killing, and so is our enemy. The end result of who walks away and who doesn't is determined by how well we do our jobs and prevent the other guys from doing theirs, end of story.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:30
|
|
The Australian August 04, 2003
Washington's Pax Americana smacks of Roman power game
In-Depth Coverage
By Paul Kennedy
The US emphatically denies it has worldwide imperial ambitions, but the global spread of its military commitments suggests otherwise, writes Paul Kennedy
THERE is a cunning after-dinner board game called SPQR which involves the defence of the Roman Empire at its height. The board is a map of Europe and the Mediterranean, showing Roman cities and ports and the military roads and the sea lanes between them. The game involves the "senators and populace" moving selected Roman legions (there were 27 of them in, say, 80AD) along those internal lines in response to new threats, whether they come from Syria, Scotland or the Danube.
There were few places along the borders of the empire where one legion could not reinforce another within 10 days' march -- which was just as well, since Rome's expansion had given it many enemies, and a legion that was based in Sicily one year might find itself in the north of England the next, guarding Hadrian's Wall.
I thought of SPQR while reading Where Are the Legions? Global Deployments of US Forces, published by Global Security, the nonprofit and nonpartisan policy research group based outside Washington (www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops...deployments.htm). The message is clear, and very disturbing: there may not be many US troops coming home soon, perhaps not for a long time.
Washington now has military forces in about 130 countries, fighting in some of them, peacekeeping and training foreign military units in others. You can hear George Washington turning in his grave.
To be sure, the US has had standing military commitments abroad since the end of the World War II -- the occupations of Germany and Japan, the Korean War and the global rivalry with the Soviet Union made sure of that.
But when the Warsaw Pact collapsed, it was generally assumed things would be different. Alas, that simply is not so. The fight against al-Qa'ida, the war and guerrilla resistance in Iraq, the implosion of Liberia, the continued unrest in Afghanistan, instability on the Korean peninsula and the need to reassure Japan of a strong US presence in the western Pacific have all conspired against a draw-down of US forces in the far corners of the globe. On the contrary, they have very much been drawn up.
Using official statistics, the editors at Global Security report there are 155 combat battalions in the US army. Before October 2001, only 17 of those were deployed on active combat service, in Kosovo and a few other hotspots (garrison deployment in Germany and Japan is not regarded as "active combat" service). Today, that figure stands at 98 combat battalions deployed in active areas.
Even a non-military expert can see this is an impossibly high number to sustain over the longer term, which is why, in addition to the 255,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guard forces deployed in combat and peacekeeping missions abroad, the US has sent another 136,000 troops from the National Guard and Reserves.
Most of the US carrier fleet are now back in their bases, being refitted after the defeat of Saddam Hussein, but Washington still has 40,000 sailors afloat and on mission. Meanwhile, the US generals are asking for more troop deployments in Iraq, and the Pentagon has just diverted three warships to the coast of Liberia. The US Defence Department now has to play a real-life game of SPQR.
These are not comfortable facts, and they should surely be giving US congressional representatives cause for thought. It is true the Pentagon is putting immense pressure on any country that counts itself a friend of Washington to send forces to Iraq, Afghanistan and Liberia, but the results so far are unspectacular.
Really, the only ground troops with heft and logistical capacity are the British, and, given all their other peacekeeping commitments -- from the Balkans to Sierra Leone -- they are probably more overstretched than the US is. Poland has assumed responsibility for running a relatively quiet (so far) zone in Iraq. But as the Wall Street Journal reported, Washington had to go to 22 countries to drum up the 9000 troops for that zone, and they will rely heavily on US technical support to function at all.
You wonder what utility Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz really accord a battalion of Latvian grenadiers in central Iraq. And what happens when they become the targets of grenade attacks?
Militarily -- and let's forget for a moment the debate about whether the US should have gone into these countries in the first place -- these awkward facts point to two equally awkward conclusions:
First, given the military overstretch, the US needs a few more heavy hitters, along with the British. It needs armies with substantial punch that could send 25,000 troops to southwest Asia. But of the 190 national armies of the world, you can count substantial ones on the fingers of one hand. Israel can't play, China and Taiwan won't play. South Korea is pinned down at home and remains a drain on US troop deployments. Japan is too psychologically and constitutionally restricted. A Pakistani presence alongside the US in Iraq might cause massive internal convulsions. A large Turkish contingent would cause a retaliatory Kurdish uprising.
This leaves India, Russia, France and Germany, and perhaps Italy, but four of those five opposed the war on Iraq in the first place, and if the US needs them now, there will be a price to pay. This is as obvious today as it should have been last September. Of course, the US can always "go it alone", but it does so at some cost.
Second, the US miliary services, and the army in particular, must come up with some long-term rotation scheme. They may have to move to a sort of Cardwell System, which was devised in the late 19th century by the then British secretary for war, Edward Cardwell, to deal with the constant calls on troops to serve abroad. One battalion of the British regiment was rotated out, perhaps to Afghanistan or Mesopotamia, for two or three years, the second battalion stayed home in the regimental barracks, recruiting fresh volunteers until its turn came to go abroad.
The system worked, just as the SPQR system worked, because both combined regular rotation (helping troop morale) and strategic flexibility. Occasionally, there were horrible reverses: for the Romans in the German forests or the British in the Khyber Pass. But the structure was strong enough to allow for recovery, often for further advances. These were empires that were in it for the long haul.
Is this the US future -- to have its troops stationed for an undefined time on the Northwest Frontier or in a disease-ridden port in West Africa or some other outpost?
Washington frantically denies it has imperial ambitions, and I believe those denials to be sincere. But if the US increasingly looks like an empire, walks like an empire and quacks like an empire, perhaps it is becoming one just the same.
Paul Kennedy is a professor of history at Yale University and author of The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
All our aerial ordnance is nastier than what we've found so far, by definition, because Saddam's "air force" didn't fly a single sortie, and virtually all aerial ordnance is bigger than any artillery. Does that mean we should have sat our air force down, to make it more sporting? Or WTF was the point you were trying to make? |
The point was that If Saddam was such a ****ing threat that war was necessary, but we were routinely *****-slapping his forces with stuff that he didn't even have the remotest chance of simulating in terms of power or effectiveness, why the hell am I supposed to believe he was such a threat that made the war necessary?
quote:
So then why not nukes? Are you leftists routinely this dumb, that you can't understand the concept of scale, or do you just ignore it when it's inconvenient to your arguments? |
Again, you miss the point. We claim a moral high ground that if Saddam uses his alleged bio and chemical weapons on our troops, we'll consider it a war crime. Consider the acknowledged effectiveness of such weapons (which is low), and the observed extreme effectiveness of napalm, not to mention it's being essentially a chemical weapon, I have to wonder if such a stance wasn't a wee bit hypocritical. If dead is dead, it works that way for both sides. Saying we're gonna be pissed if he uses chemical weapons, and then we go and use a chemical weapon ourselves on Iraqi troops certainly sounds like hypocrisy to me.
Thanks for the "dumb" remark, but note my comments held no objection to killing enemy soldiers in war, to which you seem to think I am taking umbrage.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
people voted to make bio and chem weapons illegal
peopel have not voted to make napalm illegal
while you might think things should be different (and I concede that you might be right) it still doesn't stop the fact that it is the illegality of the use of bio and chem weapons that make their use a war crime
all of war is a 'crime', but in an attempt to make it a little less nasty, we have decided that a few crimes are worse than others
these include using bio and chem weapons
they do not include napalm
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The point was that If Saddam was such a ****ing threat that war was necessary, but we were routinely *****-slapping his forces with stuff that he didn't even have the remotest chance of simulating in terms of power or effectiveness, why the hell am I supposed to believe he was such a threat that made the war necessary?
|
Apparently you missed all my prewar posts where I expressed my view that he was not an imminent enough threat to justify the required level of commitment of US forces? I don't believe the war was necessary, at the time it was fought. However, it was fought, so now we have to make the best of it, and carping about minor issues relating to ordnance selection is both trivial and non-productive.
quote:
Again, you miss the point. We claim a moral high ground that if Saddam uses his alleged bio and chemical weapons on our troops, we'll consider it a war crime. Consider the acknowledged effectiveness of such weapons (which is low), and the observed extreme effectiveness of napalm, not to mention it's being essentially a chemical weapon, I have to wonder if such a stance wasn't a wee bit hypocritical.
|
If you want to play semantic games, every weapon other than the bayonet or combat knife is a chemical weapon, because chemicals either propel it, or cause it to blow up. BCW is a violation of international convention, incendiaries are not.
WRT effectiveness, that's again a BS argument that doesn't consider scale. If you deliver 6 500 lb CW canisters with a mixture of GA and VX to that target, or 6 500 lb incendiary bombs, which do you think will be more "effective" in a 100 meter, 500 meter, 1 km, or 2 km radius?
In the immediate target area, overpressure FAEs, daisy cutters, some types of ground penetrating conventional ordnance, MOABs, or incendiaries would all be effective regarding the removal of enemy personnel from those positions. Most of those would cause more long term damage to the area than incendiaries.
And like I said in response to another post, what do you think happens when a tank or IFV is fatally hit?
Napalm does not meet the definition of a chemical weapon in the slightest. The definition of a chemical weapon is that it's effect on the human target is based upon the weapon being a reagent which induces or inhibits biochemical reactions within the target's body, or that the chemical agent itself is an area effect contact irritant with persistent effects (i.e. chlorine or phosgene gas)
The fact that something explodes or burns does not itself qualify, nor does the fact of incidental irritation due to products of combustion. Otherwise, nothing larger than a rifleman or machine gunner's full metal jacket bullet would be allowable, and that without tracers.
quote:
If dead is dead, it works that way for both sides. Saying we're gonna be pissed if he uses chemical weapons, and then we go and use a chemical weapon ourselves on Iraqi troops certainly sounds like hypocrisy to me.
|
Dead is dead applies to the individual killed. It doesn't speak to the scale of killing.
quote:
Thanks for the "dumb" remark, but note my comments held no objection to killing enemy soldiers in war, to which you seem to think I am taking umbrage. |
You're welcome. What I considered dumb was the failure to consider scale of effect.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-08-2003 00:28
|