backtop


Print 271 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Jan 29 at 2:31 PM


The weapon system fires a non-explosive projectile

Flash Xray composite image of in-flight projectile
Eat your heart out Quake fans

The Naval Surface Warfare Center played the stage for a demonstration of a new naval weapon.  The 8-megajoule railgun was the center of attention on Wednesday, as the navy demonstrated its power and low cost use.  The railgun was designed by General Atomics, a fission and fusion research company based out of San Diego.

Instead of using gunpowder, the railgun uses electricity by sending a current along parallel rails which creates an electromagnetic pulse.  The pulse is so powerful it can file projectiles roughly 200 to 250 nautical miles in about 6 minutes, using the nonexplosive slug weighing about 3.2 kilograms.  After leaving the barrel of the railgun the slug has an estimated launch altitude of about 500,000 feet or roughly 95 miles at possible Mach 7 speeds.  Current conventional guns on Navy vessels have a maximum range of about 15 miles.

Compared to a Tomahawk missile, which costs upwards of $1 million per missile, the railgun only has an estimated sub-$1,000-per-shot cost.  With the absence of gunpowder, the railgun is said to be safer to use, eliminating the possibility of explosions.

According to the Free Lance Star, General Atomic has obtained the $10 million contract for the production of the railgun.

The field deployment of the weapon is not expected for another 13 years.  In the meantime, General Atomic can start work on higher joule railguns for farther and quicker targeting and firing.  The company claims it will develop 16 and 32 megajoule variants of the weapon next.  Fully deployed railguns will be rated at approximately 64 megajoules.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

this is why i love america
By otispunkmeyer on 1/22/2007 3:51:05 AM , Rating: 5
although im not american (im british) i love america for the fact that you guys are willing to spend the green on seriously cool military hardware

you have the best planes, tanks, ships, missiles, radar everything. you just need some good british troops to help you use it all :P

seriously all the stuff you guys make would make me hella proud of america....SR-71 alone would make me proud, that is the most beautiful machine on the planet.

good show guys




RE: this is why i love america
By Fibbly on 1/22/2007 5:20:09 AM , Rating: 1
Best Tanks? No. Best planes? For some purposes, yes, no for others. Same for ships. What makes our military so strong is the combination of it and also quantity of the quality hardware. And last but not least, the practice.


RE: this is why i love america
By TheDoc9 on 1/22/2007 10:08:35 AM , Rating: 3
so, who does have the best of these things 'fibb' ly?


RE: this is why i love america
By hubajube on 1/22/2007 11:41:14 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
so, who does have the best of these things 'fibb' ly?
I think what he means is that our hardware could be better. Much better. He's on point on the practice. That's really what makes the difference.


RE: this is why i love america
By BladeVenom on 1/22/2007 11:47:19 AM , Rating: 3
The Challenger 2 tank is just as good as ours. The Chobham armor that the M1s use was invented by the British.

The Starstreak antiaircraft missile looks good.


RE: this is why i love america
By stromgald on 1/22/2007 11:48:30 AM , Rating: 5
U.S. Tank: M1A1 Abrams
- best tank for tank on tank or tank on stationary target warfare
- Not good in close quarters or against infantry (most tanks aren't, I think a handful of Israeli tanks are considered better in close quarters)

U.S. Planes: F-22, JSF.
- Best fighters, most advanced technologically
- Has competition from Russian prototype aircraft

Ships: Ohio class submarines, aircraft carriers, AEGIS cruisers . . .
- No other country has aircraft carriers near the size/power of the US aircraft carriers
- Only Russian Typhoon class has the nuclear projection power of the Ohio class.
- No competition except maybe a few Russian prototype subs
- AEGIS cruisers have been sold to allies such as Japan.

Quit bull****ing. The US has the #1 military in terms of technology. The US also has the best military because its training of soldiers is very high but the training is not #1 (behind to Israel and maybe a few other countries).


RE: this is why i love america
By Smurfer2 on 1/22/2007 11:57:07 AM , Rating: 2
Stromgald, I think in principle you are right.

The U.S. M1A2 is arguably second best to the Challenger 2. Though that depends on who you ask. It definently has a better gun though.

U.S. planes have some competition for sure. I wouldn't say we have the best. (Iran has F-14s, which I believe are a better air superiority fighter then the JSF)Some of the no longer prototype Russian aircraft can be seen as better. Though crew quality and numbers makes them a moot point

Just expanding, hope ya don't mind.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 12:00:40 PM , Rating: 3
> "U.S. planes have some competition for sure. I wouldn't say we have the best. (Iran has F-14s..."

Those F-14's ARE US planes...and Iran can't even field them, due to lack of parts and maintenance.


RE: this is why i love america
By hubajube on 1/22/2007 12:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Those F-14's ARE US planes...and Iran can't even field them, due to lack of parts and maintenance.
Not to mention those F-14's don't have all the goodies that the US versions have.


RE: this is why i love america
By Martin Blank on 1/22/2007 2:47:04 PM , Rating: 3
Iranian F-14s were shipped with AWG-9 radars and Phoenix missiles. The viability of the Phoenix missiles may be in doubt, but Iranian Tomcats do fly, and they have been photographed relatively recently with Phoenix missiles slung underneath. They're not as up-to-date as the US Tomcats were before their retirement, but they're certainly still a viable threat at range. In a war situation, they're probably the biggest threat to AWACS aircraft, since even the earliest Phoenix missiles had home-on-jam capabilities, and demonstrated strikes on targets out to 75 miles or more.


RE: this is why i love america
By mezman on 1/22/2007 3:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
Correct. The Iranian F-14s were 1970's versions and were stripped down at the time. The F-14 was continually upgraded for the next 25 years here in the United States while the Iranian F-14's gathered dust. Their F-14's don't offer a threat to modern US warplanes.


RE: this is why i love america
By stromgald on 1/22/2007 3:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
Acutally, the F-14 and JSF aren't in the same class. The F-14 is air superiority and is being replaced by the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet. The JSF is in the "light-weight fighter" class and replaces the F/A-18 A/B/C/D Hornet and various other small attack/utility aircraft the Navy has. With the new avionics and better manuverability of the F/A-18 E/F and JSF, I'd pick that over an F-14 any day (even US versions). The F-14 just has a higher top speed.

The Challenger 2 is very similar to the M1A2, but the Abrams has a higher top speed and a longer range gun, and with the insane accuracy of modern tanks, that speed + range = kill about 80% of the time.

The main weakness of both tanks is that they were designed mostly for tank on tank long range warfare. Close quarters like around buildings causes serious problems for both tanks. I think the Israeli Merkava is considered the best in guerrilla warfare, which is becoming more and more common.



By rippleyaliens on 1/26/2007 11:21:57 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, alot of people here are wrong. The weapon system, is only a small percentage of what the weapon is capabile of doing. Take the F14 Tomcat. the thing is over 30 years old, YET, 1- Upgrades to avionics, Newer weapon platforms. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY. The training around it. American pilots are some of the best trained out there. REASON= Easy, the United states can afford to send pilots up, and up, and up.. Isreal pilots are excellent, be that country cannot afford to put them in the air, like we can.

M1-Tank. Is by all means, the very BEST on teh planet. 1 on 1, versus a leopard, or isreali tank, well, i would say, the latter. BUT a M1- Platoon, with their support gear=unstoppable, within its weapons envelope.

The Russian t-80 and latter, are actually supperior TANKS, look up Fort ORD, the aggressor teams. Those guys hardly ever lost, BUT in Iraq, desert storm, it was a totally different story. Reason= Again, Training.Training, Training.

I personally can out shoot alot of Police officers, and i regulary do, at the range. Why, easy, when i was in Marines, i shot thousands upon thousands or rounds of pistol / SMG (hk mp5) rounds. YET, i will get spanked by some Seal guys. Because HE shot 10's of thousands of rounds. Training always makes the difference in War.
Helicopters, same thing. US can afford, to have their pilots in the air, training 3x4 times, the next best military, honing their skills, learning the hardware..

Training


RE: this is why i love america
By ralith on 1/22/2007 6:05:42 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm, the F-22 seems to have been forgotten here. It was designed as a air superiority fighter, and I'm pretty sure it'd kick the sh*t out of anything out there including 30+ year old F-14s.


RE: this is why i love america
By stromgald on 1/22/2007 8:07:46 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the F-14 is navy. The F-22 can't take off an aircraft carrier like the JSF can. There is one aircraft that might challenge the F/A-22 and that's the Russian Su-47, but that's an experimental aircraft and hasn't entered production.


RE: this is why i love america
By Locutus465 on 1/22/2007 8:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
As big a fan as I am of the F-14 (a U.S. plan as others have already pointed out) I have a high degree of confidence that the F-22 would *always* come out superior, and that it would have a tough time against the JSF as it is also stealthy which is problematic for the tom cat's greatest strength, it's radar.


RE: this is why i love america
By Mclendo06 on 1/29/2007 12:26:38 AM , Rating: 2
I sure would like to see those F-14's trying to get their fancy 1970's radars to lock onto an incoming flight of stealthy Joint Strike Fighters. If they got in behind them then maybe they would have a chance. The stealth characteristics of US aircraft are rather closely guarded but I see the tail end of a JSF being its most vulnerable point. The F-14 is designed to be an interceptor, though, and in the head-to-head type situation it was originally designed for, I doubt it would fare well at all against any stealth aircraft.

As far as aircraft go in general, the US is a full generation ahead of any other country with regards to production aircraft. The US is the only country with 5th generation fighter aircraft in production, those being the F-22 and the F-35. Also, if Iran is able to fly their limited F-14 fleet, their pilots, who have likely gotten flying time in F-14s totaling in the tens of hours at best, would pretty much just be flying to their deaths against American Pilots who have multiple thousands of hours of training time in jet fighter aircraft, many of those hours in the very aircraft they are going to combat in. If there are any Iranian pilots reading this post, I suggest that in case of war with the USA, you learn the word "Asylum", jettison your weapons, and fly your 1st/2nd/3rd generation fighter to the nearest America-friendly airbase you can find before some F-22 your radar can't even pick up ruins your day by sticking an AMRAAM up your tailpipe.


RE: this is why i love america
By alcalde on 1/23/2007 1:03:35 AM , Rating: 3
You're discussing platforms but not ordinance. We're behind the Russians in supercavitating torpedoes (shkval - probably 200 knots +) and anti-ship missiles (Sunburn supersonic missile).

And I disagree with the statement about the only submarine competition are Russian prototype subs. The Akula II is not a prototype sub. Also, the Sunburn was designed to deal with AEGIS....

http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawes...


RE: this is why i love america
By Sahrin on 1/23/2007 11:42:42 AM , Rating: 2
I would put a Sea Wolf against any Sov/Russian sub, including Akula-series subs, Typhoon - anything. Not the sissy watered down Virginias, but a true Sea Wolf.

Understand, that a lot has to do with the quality and ingenuity of the crew (most submarines have the same basic "skillset") - so put "Marko Ramius" against "gilligan" and you've got a red-flag winner every time - but equal crews, I'd rather be in a Sea Wolf. The Russians build great hardware, very durable, with 'different' kinds of ideas - but I think America's strength is that when it gets serious about a piece of hardware (Sea Wolf, SuperNimitz, F-22, SR-71, Ohio, B-2B, M1A1, Aegis, Commanche) that hardware is incredible. People knock the DoD for cost overruns, but to me - it's an R&D investment, it's going to balloon because you're inventing the science.

But to sum up, Sea Wolf > Aging North Sea Fleet and a submarine development program on Welfare. (OR the Russian equivalent. Welfarskiy).


RE: this is why i love america
By stromgald on 1/23/2007 11:46:17 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure about the Sunbeam missile, but for submarines, the U.S. is still on top IMO. The Akula II is slightly better than the Los Angeles class US attack subs. But as far as I know, there have only been 2-4 built. The US has about as many SeaWolf attack subs and twice as many Virginia class subs. Both were designed to replace the LA class, but exact capabilities are sketchy compared to what's known of the Akula II. Nevertheless, I'd bet on either of those two over the Akula II in a fight.

I'm more confident on the U.S. continuing to build and refine the new Virginia class than I am of Russia having the money to continue their Akula II program.


RE: this is why i love america
By Fibbly on 1/24/2007 8:06:51 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
U.S. Tank: M1A1 Abrams - best tank for tank on tank or tank on stationary target warfare - Not good in close quarters or against infantry (most tanks aren't, I think a handful of Israeli tanks are considered better in close quarters)


Check your facts and dont go by what you see when you play BF2...

If anything, you should be talking about the M1A2 Abrams. However, what makes the M1A2 inferior to other tanks such as the german Leopard 2 A6 or the russian T90 is logistics. The M1A2 for example needs almost twice the amount of fuel as the Leopard 2 A6, while the firepower is almost the same (the M1A2 uses the 120mm german Rheinmetall L44 smoothbore gun (called M256 in the US military) while the Leopard is equipped with a 120mm smoothbore L55 gun, which is a bit longer than the L44 and thus has a higher range), the armor is comparable, whereas the M1A2 has a slight protection advantage against RPGs, the Leopards protection against kinetic projectiles (tank vs. tank warfare) is better.

There are good reasons why many countries prefer the Leopard over the Abrams. So, no, the Abrams is not the hands down best MBT out there.

quote:
U.S. Planes: F-22, JSF. - Best fighters, most advanced technologically - Has competition from Russian prototype aircraft


Again, dont play games, get yourself educated with real facts. See this link for a brief summary by a US AF general who flew both the F-22 and the Eurofighter Typhoon. And dont miss the line where he says, they're neck-to-neck in aircombat performance. But their roles are also difficult to compare.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/new...

Not to mention the superior maneuverability of the Sukhoi Su-30 MKI with its two-dimensional thrust vectoring.

Again, no, the F-22 is not the hands down best plane out there. Its best in some roles, but not in all.

quote:
Ships: Ohio class submarines, aircraft carriers, AEGIS cruisers . . . - No other country has aircraft carriers near the size/power of the US aircraft carriers - Only Russian Typhoon class has the nuclear projection power of the Ohio class. - No competition except maybe a few Russian prototype subs - AEGIS cruisers have been sold to allies such as Japan.


And once again you display your lack of knowledge by throwing in nuclear weapons platforms such as the ohio class SSBN's and the russian counterparts. These weapon platforms serve a unique purpose and have never been used in active combat - lets hope it will never happen. If you want to include submarines, use the Los Angeles class attack submarines, for they are used in conventional warfare. And compare them to the norwegian, russian and german attack submarines. The german U31 for example is the first of its kind with a fuelcell propulsion system, giving this boat virtually the same combat flexibility as the los angeles class, at smaller size and even more silent operation levels - guess why the israeli navy is looking to buy that boat from the germans. The norwegians developed a similar submarine. Just because it doesnt have a nuclear reactor, doesnt mean its inferior.

There is no doubt that the american supercarriers are the biggest and best aircraft carriers. Its a "luxury" not every country can or wants to afford. As far as destroyers and cruisers go, the US navy is quite a bit behind other countries when it comes to stealth technology for surface ships. Sweden, France, Germany, India, Britain and even Singapore already deployed surface ships with stealth characteristics, while the US DD(X) also known as Sea Shadow is still in development. Other than that, america and its allies often use the same weapon systems on their ships, of which not all are made in america.

Again, the US navy is positively the strongest navy on this planet due to its size and combination of hardware. This does, however, not mean all of the hardware is superior to any other vessel.

I want to close this by asking you to quit talking out of your ass about things you obviously have no fucking clue about.


RE: this is why i love america
By fxnick on 1/22/2007 10:40:05 PM , Rating: 1
stop being so anti-american like ABC


RE: this is why i love america
By Felofasofa on 1/22/2007 6:14:20 AM , Rating: 2
Metal Storm is some of the hottest tech around (guns that can fire a million rounds per second and no moving parts) and was invented by a Green Grocer from Brisbane! Chinese thought it was so hot they tried to buy lock stock and barrel.

http://www.metalstorm.com/


RE: this is why i love america
By mamisano on 1/22/2007 10:06:42 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, saw this on TLC's FutureWeapons about 2 weeks ago... I was in awe!


RE: this is why i love america
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 1/22/2007 10:35:35 AM , Rating: 2
After you get over the impressive numbers and look at how Metal Storm works, you'll discover that is has only a very limited practical use. The metal storm company is very good at marketing, but thier technology is a little weak.


RE: this is why i love america
By noxipoo on 1/24/2007 1:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
care to explain it in detail? like why it's not practical? i'm not being sarcastic, i'm interested.


RE: this is why i love america
By Arthur on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: this is why i love america
By zsdersw on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: this is why i love america
By otispunkmeyer on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: this is why i love america
By TellindaTroof on 1/22/2007 8:57:31 AM , Rating: 1
Surely you Europeans know that if it weren't for warfare and the superiority of the American military, all of you would be speaking German right now.

70 years ago the disease was the Nazis, now it's Islam. Islam requires its followers to convert, subjugate or kill all unbelievers. That you and me pal. They've made quite a bit of headway in Europe, without a doubt. Look at the rioting muslim youths in France recently.

America is at war in the Middle East not for oil, but to protect ourselves and the rest of the West from this scourge of a religion called Islam.

If any of you believe Islam is a religion of peace and America is just making all this up, do a google search for 'Undercover mosque' to find the work Channel 4 in the UK did. They went undercover in a mosque to find out what the imams were saying when they thought no westerners were listenting. It's frightening.

Good day.


RE: this is why i love america
By Merry on 1/22/2007 9:34:43 AM , Rating: 5
Surely you Europeans know that if it weren't for warfare and the superiority of the American military, all of you would be speaking German right now.

I think Britain not caving in in the first place also helped.

70 years ago the disease was the Nazis, now it's Islam

Thats a wee bit harsh. There are moderate Muslims, you know. Its like tagging the Christian Right as a disease and then automatically assuming all other Christians are the same.

America is at war in the Middle East not for oil, but to protect ourselves and the rest of the West from this scourge of a religion called Islam.

You cant believe that, surely. I dont care that its about oil, really i dont, but it has nothing to do with terrorism and even if it did its pretty obvious it was entirely the wrong strategy. The way I see it was Afghanistan was about terrorism, Iraq was about oil.

If any of you believe Islam is a religion of peace and America is just making all this up, do a google search for 'Undercover mosque' to find the work Channel 4 in the UK did. They went undercover in a mosque to find out what the imams were saying when they thought no westerners were listenting. It's frightening.

What some were saying, not all. Its like labeling half of the Irish population as terrorists, and hell they've killed more people in the UK then any other terrorist organisation.


I think the key here is not to place blame upon single religions as a whole entity. It is clear that it is a minority that is responsible for terrorist actions, which, quite frankly pale into insignificance in terms of lives lost when compared to conventional war, or indeed other non Muslim terrorist groups' campaigns'. I know that doesn't mean much for those who have lost people to such actions, but its unbalanced responses to such actions that escalates the situation, leading to more people getting killed. The way America is acting with regard to its foreign policy now is an open invitation for pissed off muslims (possibly because of a number of social factors) to join extremist groups, therefore perhaps the key to stop terrorism is to look at the root social causes of it, avoiding bringing religion into it.


RE: this is why i love america
By The Sword 88 on 1/22/2007 10:27:11 AM , Rating: 1
I think Britain not caving in in the first place also helped
The victory is owed to the US and to Britain

Thats a wee bit harsh. There are moderate Muslims, you know. Its like tagging the Christian Right as a disease and then automatically assuming all other Christians are the same.

How many Christian extremists are blowing themselves up because of it. There are some and they stain the reputation of the rest of us Christians but they are many more radical and violent Muslims.

You cant believe that, surely. I dont care that its about oil, really i dont, but it has nothing to do with terrorism and even if it did its pretty obvious it was entirely the wrong strategy. The way I see it was Afghanistan was about terrorism, Iraq was about oil.

I agree about the entirely wrong strategy. That would be one of the reasons Bush lost my support

What some were saying, not all. Its like labeling half of the Irish population as terrorists, and hell they've killed more people in the UK then any other terrorist organisation.

The IRA were terrorists and there are still terrorists in Ireland.



I think the key here is not to place blame upon single religions as a whole entity. It is clear that it is a minority that is responsible for terrorist actions, which, quite frankly pale into insignificance in terms of lives lost when compared to conventional war, or indeed other non Muslim terrorist groups' campaigns'. I know that doesn't mean much for those who have lost people to such actions, but its unbalanced responses to such actions that escalates the situation, leading to more people getting killed. The way America is acting with regard to its foreign policy now is an open invitation for pissed off muslims (possibly because of a number of social factors) to join extremist groups, therefore perhaps the key to stop terrorism is to look at the root social causes of it, avoiding bringing religion into it.

Less people have been killed in Iraq during the war than were under Sadaam. Religion is the reason for these wars. Muslims have been trying to covert or kill Christians since the 5th century when the first Islamic expansion happened adn the hatred increased with the crusades and now it is happening again.


RE: this is why i love america
By dubldwn on 1/22/2007 12:28:39 PM , Rating: 3
Islam appeared in the 7th Century - just an FYI.


RE: this is why i love america
By TellindaTroof on 1/22/2007 1:14:08 PM , Rating: 1
As another FYI, muslims and other muslim apologists point to the Crusades as evidene of Christian aggression against Muslims. This is false. The Crusades were a delayed response to hundreds of years of muslims conquering Christian lands. The Crusades were not entirely successful though. Also, muslims believe that if they have ever occupied a piece of land (by conquering or other means) then that land is permanently muslim land.


RE: this is why i love america
By Locutus465 on 1/22/2007 8:45:49 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, perhaps the first one. And that was at the behests of the Byzantian Emperor who claimed Christian pilgrams were being targeted be muslims which to my knowlege history has juged to not be the case. Then there were 5 more crusades which were really more about gaining eastern wealth and knowledge (Europe was so backwards at the time), 1 crusade which was about kidnapping childeren and selling them as slaves, and 1 which was about buring and pilliging Constantinople (boy I bet they were sorry they asked for W. Europe's help).

But in the end, this all started what, 800 years ago? Seriously, how long are the extreamests going to try and hold this as justification for what they claim to be a "holy" quest. There is no Christian alive who committed any of the atrocities durring the cursades, and no muslum alive who suffered because of it. Time to move on.


RE: this is why i love america
By 8NP4iN on 1/23/2007 8:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
Man, religion sucks...
I just believe in god... this nonsense of alcoran and bible... its all bullshit...a bunch of guys who say that they are messenger of god or have been visited bla bla bla...cmon
religion is the number one reason for killing in the world...
europe wiped out the new world population and conquered most of the world with excuse of religion...
its all fucking bullshit...wars are fought for 3 reasons, money, religion, and power...and its all goes down to power, cause power gives you acess to everything else.
im a free mind


RE: this is why i love america
By Locutus465 on 1/22/2007 8:37:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The victory is owed to the US and to Britain


What about russia? I'm american, but credit must go where it is due... They broke Germany's back.


RE: this is why i love america
By Pirks on 1/22/2007 10:22:31 PM , Rating: 1
hey Locutus, you're one of the very rare americans who know the real stuff about WWII, congrats! let's see if some other smart people appear here... I bet masher knows this as well, anyone else?


RE: this is why i love america
By Ratwar on 1/23/2007 12:16:35 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the Russians did a lot, but I wouldn't say that the British and American contributions were in any way small. Just the distraction of the two/three front war (if you count Italy) hurt Germany, not to mention the heavy bombing that destroyed much of the German industrial sector. Plus the US sent plenty of supplies to the Russians over the course of the war.

Another important point is that there was a whole war fought in the Pacific that the Russians didn't enter until the end of the war.

All in all, I'd say the greatest contributor to the defeat of Germany was probably the Russian Winter.


RE: this is why i love america
By TellindaTroof on 1/23/2007 9:52:16 AM , Rating: 2
yeah you aren't kidding. Those Russians were some tough SOBs. It's too bad there was a land grab power stuggle after the war.


RE: this is why i love america
By tigen on 1/24/2007 7:10:20 PM , Rating: 3
That's the funny thing. The Soviets were no better than the Nazis. They grabbed land from Finland and Poland etc. and turned all the eastern countries into vassal puppet states, and forced mass migrations of civilians. They put millions of people in concentration camps and "penal colonies". Stalin was a megalomaniac in the same class as Hitler, and the initial invasion of Poland was shared by Stalin. but Britain and France ignored that.

The only reason they stopped where they did was the atom bomb.


RE: this is why i love america
By Pirks on 1/22/2007 10:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The victory is owed to the US and to Britain
Oh, and I thought it was Russian Red Army who was fighting and defeating Germans from 1941 to 1945 with a little help of US and Brits very late in the war, circa 1944. Poor me, gotta go read some history books. Well, that if masher doesn't say his word here. Masher, any comments on that? ;)


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2007 12:05:06 AM , Rating: 2
The fact is, without the the British, the Americans, or the Soviets, the Allies would have been defeated. That goes without saying, for any student of the period. However, I think the basis for the OP's post is that US troops did their fighting entirely upon foreign soil, defending foreign nations.


By Hoser McMoose on 1/23/2007 4:36:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How many Christian extremists are blowing themselves up because of it. There are some and they stain the reputation of the rest of us Christians but they are many more radical and violent Muslims.


Christians of various stripes have had more then their fair share of violence perpetrated in the name of their religion. From the Crusades, though the Spanish Inquisition, conquering the Pagans through much of Europe and right up to the Troubles in Northern Ireland and Timothy McVeigh (a devote Roman Catholic who committed the second-worst terrorist act in the US, after Sept. 11), just to name a few. Right now they might be in a period of relatively low activity, but if you think that terrorism and wars are purely a Muslim phenomena then I would say that you're gravely mistaken. Even suicide bombings are not a Muslim-exclusive, though they are often portrayed as such. The Tamil Tigers were probably the first to popularize the modern suicide bombings, and the Tamil people are a mix of Muslim, Hindu and Christians.

Pretty much all religions have had atrocities committed in their name, and almost to a one those atrocities were in direct violation of the teachings of those religions (as is the case with the current Muslim terrorists). Political leaders, under many guises, have a VERY long history of subverting religions for their own goals.

quote:
The IRA were terrorists and there are still terrorists in Ireland.


The number of terrorists left in Northern Ireland could probably be counted on one hand. The former IRA, UDA/UFF, et. al. have pretty much all disbanded their political and religious fighting. What's left now could more accurately be described as "gangs" and these days most of the killings and bombings are more related to organized crime than anything else.

quote:
Muslims have been trying to covert or kill Christians since the 5th century when the first Islamic expansion happened adn the hatred increased with the crusades and now it is happening again.


Err.. how exactly did Muslims try and kill or convert Christians since before Muslims themselves existed?! And painting this as a one-sided thing is just completely inaccurate. Muslims fought Christians, Christians fought Muslims, they both fought the Jews and all have fought among themselves. In almost all the cases, right up to the current things happening today in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel and beyond, religion is only one aspect of things. Power and politics are almost always intermixed with religion. After all, you never see the Priests, Ministers, Imams or Rabbi's, or politicians for that matter, fighting out on the front lines, it's always the soldiers that take orders from these people.

The fact of the matter is that there are some 1.4 billion Muslims on the planet today (give or take a few million). The number of those that are terrorists (a term that is open to HUGE interpretation) is SIGNIFICANTLY less than 1%.


RE: this is why i love america
By Grast on 1/22/2007 10:56:06 AM , Rating: 1
Merry,

While it is true we are at war with the Middle East, I believe the whole Iraq war was based on the idea that if freedom was given a chance. We would be able to establish a democracy in the Middle East and contain the terrorist to that side of the world. It was a good idea however naive but still a good idea.

Ok now, we were wrong. The people of Iraq do not want freedom or peace just to continue their religious wars against each other. I have accepted that as a reality. Bush made a mistake in that matter. The bigger mistake and the one which basically remove my support for him was his lack of ability/willingness to change the course and develop a new strategy. A new strategy which would remove our troops while still containing the mess in Iraq.

I agree with the previous poster in that Islam is our enemy. Maybe not all of Islam but enough to make targeting the bad people difficult. I am also forced to look at history to help in my opinions. While not all followers of Islam are trying to kill me, these people are still helping the ones that are trying to kill me by doing nothing. This is similar to WWII in Germany. The Germans which did not fight the Nazis and simply went along with the program were just as guilty as the Nazi's. History shows they suffered just as much or more than the Nazi’s.

This leads me to my main point. If the peace loving Muslims wish to stop this slippery slope, they need to start help and get off the side lines. Otherwise they will be most likely in the end be held as just as responsible as the hard-line Muslims.

I believe at this time. Muslims have received a reprieve from America. If another or more vicious attack occurs on U.S. soil again, I believe the Muslims of the world will regret that day. I am not like Israel. I will not set idly by and let people attack and kill my country. I would soon as expel all immigrants and declare war on all Muslims states. I would then use all of these high-tech weapons at our disposal.

I know this aggressive. But again, I am not an Israeli willing to sit by and let Muslims bomb and attack my country. Unlike other people, I will hold a grudge and will show no mercy………

End of Rant.


RE: this is why i love america
By TheDoc9 on 1/23/2007 5:52:19 PM , Rating: 2
It's too bad your rant got a -1, I agree with it to an extent. Unfortunately you can't really come out and say something like that on a board dominated by liberal secular progressives. Not without sounding crazy by them, their opinion, as much as it actually matters(none).

I'm remembering something a famous businessman said - "opinions are the cheapest commodities on earth, everyone has a flock of opinions that they will readily wish on anyone who will accept them"

Having said that I believe there should be a balance. It’s obvious to me that standing up for oneself is the ONLY way to get anywhere in life – this is easily a metaphor for a country being attacked. As in a country that protects itself survives and thrives. It’s unfortunate that brainwashing left tv and the short span of people memory (sept. 11th) allows people to easily justify being so docile in our efforts towards those that would like nothing less than to knock us down and take our place.


RE: this is why i love america
By InsaneGain on 1/26/2007 2:20:50 PM , Rating: 2
I often hear about this theory that the United States is in Iraq "to grab all of the oil", and people readily accept it as truth. How exactly is the U.S. getting this oil? Are they getting it for below market prices? Are they secretly filling hundreds of container ships with oil for free and shipping it to the homeland? Who exactly is taking possession of this oil? Is the U.S. making a profit from said oil after taking into account the expenses of the war?


RE: this is why i love america
By mino on 1/22/2007 9:59:08 AM , Rating: 2
more probably russian than German.

Also, FYI the french riots had pretty much nothing to do with Islam.


RE: this is why i love america
By rushfan2006 on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: this is why i love america
By patentman on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: this is why i love america
By TellindaTroof on 1/22/2007 1:08:54 PM , Rating: 5
Rushfan2006,

What did I say that makes me an asshole? Everything I said was absolutely true, except that I left out Britain's role in defeating the Nazis. Read up on the origins of Islam and life of Mohammed. You will come to see (but probably not embrace) that it's the moderate muslims that are not practicing true islam, not the jihadists. The jihadists are perfectly emulating the life of Mohammed (their perfect model of behavior)and they aim to run the entire planet under Sharia law. Islam is only a peaceful religion after they have conquered you. Until then, their highest responsibility from Allah is jihad.

Islam is spreading, and if you think they want to live in peace with their neighbors you are sadly mistaken. Look around the world anywhere a muslim state borders a non-muslim state. There is constant strife caused by the muslims, but they portray themselves as the hapless victims of oppression. Muslims may live for a time under a democracy, but they are commanded to dismantle it once their numbers are sufficient. They are very patient. They are willing to take hundreds of years to conquer a piece of land. One reason they've been so successful in making their case as victims is that Islam allows lying, cheating and stealing as long as it advances Islam. This is absolute fact. Mohammed himself said "War is deceit".

I assure you, I'm no asshole. I'm a regular college educated, married guy with 3 kids and a great job who became concerned with what is going on in the world. I took it upon myself to learn what these muslim are thinking. After much research and learning from frightening facts, I came to understand what is going on. Dude, it is effing scary how most countries, the UN, etc are turning a blind eye to the spread of Islam.

Do you wonder why the terrorists like to behead people? They are emulating their prophet Mohammed, who said "When you meet an unbeliever on the battlefield, smite their necks". And the battlefield is anywhere they encounter you and you refuse to convert or live as virtual slaves under Sharia law.


RE: this is why i love america
By Merry on 1/22/2007 2:06:33 PM , Rating: 3
Whilst i disagreed with your original argument I also dont think it was fair to call you an arsehole.

I think what it boils down to is the fact that we all have different experiences regarding Muslims, I dont know whether you deal a lot with people of that faith, however I come across them everyday doing ordinary things such as running the corner shop or going about there daily business. It is because of this that I, personally cant label them all as my enemy, this simply is not the case, however, others may beg to differ due to different experiences of such people.


RE: this is why i love america
By TellindaTroof on 1/22/2007 2:13:51 PM , Rating: 3
Merry,

I see your point of view completely, and I didn't mean to label the nice guy running the 7-11 down on the corner the enemy. There are plenty of people that call themselves muslims and they're fine to live next door to a Christian the rest of their life. But if you do the research, you will see what true Islam is about. It's continually covered up and glossed over in the media. You have to go beyond that and do the research yourself.

I don't come in contact with many muslims. But I do read and research what is going on in the world.


RE: this is why i love america
By Pirks on 1/22/2007 10:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
Tellinda, I lived with Arabs as my roommates for several years in university here in Canada, and found nothing like this beheading stuff and total conversion of everything to Islam etc etc. On the other hand I happen to know one funny Polish taxi cab driver here, and he's absolutely crazy about jews, he'd kill all jews in the world if he could just becuase he hates jews. Much like Nazi in Germany in 1930s. So in fact it boils down to individuals - not all Muslims are terrorists, not all Poles hate jews and not all Russians are Communists (this one you can trust me on - I'm from Russia myself). I know Islam is spreading, but so is Christianity - I've been bugged by all sorts of crazy Christians willing to convert me to their faith MUCH more often by any Muslims. And speaking of Muslim countries attacking neighbors - that's pretty fucked up shit, I have yet to see a single Muslim country that attacked its neighbor just to convert them to Islam. You obviously mixing up zealots with normal people. Here, here, I'll tell you one more shocking revelation - NOT ALL Mac users are fuckheads and zealots. Really, really - I know a lot of them and maybe one or two guys are crazy fanatics that really worship Jobs, everyone else is 100% normal, just using Mac because they like it (they usually have Windows PC as well, 'cause they like to have best from both worlds) --- Same for everyone else. My life experience tells me that zealots are always a minority. They cause all the trouble but they are NOT the people. They are just sick perverts with damaged brains, we should in fact treat them and help them - this is medical condition, you know


RE: this is why i love america
By TellindaTroof on 1/23/2007 9:42:28 AM , Rating: 2
I did not intend to paint all muslims as terrorists. They aren't. The fact remains that Islam is a violent religion, Christianity is not. Look what happened when the pope quote a Byzantine ruler about the Islam being a violent religion or whatever. How did muslims around the world react? They went nucking futs with violence and called for his head. Doesn't anyone see this as ironic?

quote:
And speaking of Muslim countries attacking neighbors - that's pretty fucked up shit, I have yet to see a single Muslim country that attacked its neighbor just to convert them to Islam.

I never said that they attack another country only to convert them. Look around at every shooting war around the world. Muslims are involved. It's very simple if you read the Q'uran and any true history of Mohammed. Muslims are commanded by Allah to slay unbelievers. They liken jews to pigs and monkeys. It's all there for anyone to read. The hadiths (customs of Mohammed) are chock full of sick twisted behavior by this perfect model of behavior. Ordering the slaughter of innocents, ordering the assasination of his detractors, polygamy, sex with slaves, and this little gem of perfect behavior: Mohammed took a 6 year old wife, Aisha, and popped her cherry when she was 9. She was his favorite wife. You don't hear about these things in the media and from other apologists for Islam. Never. So they never have to defend Mohammed's actions, they are never called to account.

What is really transparent about Mohammed and his 'revelations' from Allah is this; time and time again when Mohammed was in a situation, he magically received a revelation from Allah to satisfy his own personal desires or to fix some sticky situation. It's freaking hilarious. Most muslims don't know what is in the Q'uran and and they can only recite the verses that are positive and uplifting. there are many accounts of muslims looking closer at a translation of the Q'uran and being quite disgusted so they became apostates. Oh speaking of apostates, under Sharia law, the penalty for converting away from Islam is death! Anyone care to defend that? Sharia law is the governmental system under Islam and it is the highest law to a true muslim. Somebody please tell me that I'm full of crap, there's no such thing as Sharia law and that muslims don't want to spread it all over the globe. Give me some facts, maybe some reassurance from some imams that I'm wrong.

The mosques in Anytown, USA don't teach the violent parts of the Q'uran as far as we know. The UK however, is diffent. Wahhabism is making huge advances in Europe due to the pacifism of France and other countries there.

Muslims won't tell you that Mohammed was a thief, not a common thief, but an exceptionally good one. His band of thugs would attack caravans, killing all the men, raping the women and keeping them as slaves. Then when it came time to split up the booty, Mohammed would once again get a magical revelation that God's Messenger is to get 1/2 the booty. Hey! I'm God's messenger! I guess that means I get 1/2 the booty! Hey that guy is still alive, cut off his head! Other times they would spare the lives of those they conquered if they converted to Islam or they would make a pact where those conquered would live as dhimmis, the lowest class of citizen. The dhimmis were another source of income for the muslim societies. They were forced to pay a poll tax. This was one of the 3 choices they had: Conversion, dhimmitude or death.

Another great thing about Islam is how they treat women. They'll tell you that women are held in the highest regard in muslim society. Under Sharia law, if a woman accuses a man of rape, she must provide like 4 male witnesses to back her up. If she can't provide witnesses, she has admitted to adultery and will be stoned to death. Mohammed's child-wife, whose cherry was popped by Mohammed at age 9, said (paraphrasing)"No one has suffered more that the muslim woman". I've said this before in another post: A few years ago (I think) Saudi virtue police prevented 15 schoolgirls from escaping a buring building because they didn't have on their proper Islamic dress. The 15 girls died, were burned to death, because they couldn't be seen in public without their scarves. These people aren't the radicals shooting up Iraq. This is the police force in Saudi Arabia. Somebody please defend these muslims. Let's hear it. "Oh they are extremists, I know a white police office that would do the same thing at a black school".

There is so much more about the beginnings of Islam and this isn't the forum for it. I welcome any rebuttals though, someone tell me I'm wrong here.

But most people won't ever hear any of these facts anywhere unless you seek the truth yourselves.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2007 10:14:39 AM , Rating: 2
> "Islam is a violent religion...Another great thing about Islam is how they treat women..."

A few quotes from your Christian Bible:

quote:
And the men of Israel turned against the Benjaminites, and killed them all by the sword, the men of every city, the livestock, and all they chanced upon: also they set on fire all the cities that they came to ....
Judges 20:48

quote:
Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate and he shall destroy the sinners...Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one shall fall by the sword... Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished ....
Isaiah 13:9-15

quote:
Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, "If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering. So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him victory...When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his daughter – his only child – ran out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy.... and her father kept his vow, and she died a virgin ...
Judges 11:29-40

quote:
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death ...
Lev. 21:9

quote:
Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of [the city of unbelievers] with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein , and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword...
Deut 13:15

quote:
Make ready to slaughter the sons for the guilt of their fathers ; Lest they rise and posses the earth...
Isaiah 14:21

quote:
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death . Such evil must be purged...
Deut 7:12

quote:
When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy . Do not intermarry with them, and don't let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters. They will lead your young people away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and he will destroy you...
Deut 7:1-4

quote:
I will fill the mountains with slain men : in thy hills, and in thy valleys, and in all thy rivers, shall they fall that are slain with the sword. I will make thee perpetual desolations, and thy cities shall not return: and ye shall know that I am the LORD ...
Ezekial 35:7-9


RE: this is why i love america
By TellindaTroof on 1/23/2007 1:15:53 PM , Rating: 2
Masher2,

This is an excellent point and I'm glad you brought it up. It even further makes my point about the differences between Islam and any other religion in the world.

How much of the narrative in your examples do we see in Christianity today, or even in the past 1000 years? ZERO. Show me where Christians treat women a certain way based on the religious texts. We don't stone our women for being raped. We don't behead little Christian school girls walking to school like muslims do, we don't shoot children in the back as they try to escape the school that was taken hostage in Beslan. Muslims did that! For the sake of being a muslim. Not because they were pissed at the school board.

You won't find that Jesus preached any of what happened thousands of years before he came. Those people weren't Christians. All of these books were written before the time of Christ. We are talking about Christianity here. Show me some verses where Jesus murdered, raped, screwed 9 year old girls, pillaged, assassinated, and on and on. You won't find any. Now look at Mohammed. Mohammed never performed ANY miracles. He made up a whole hell of a lot of stuff as he went along, receiving revelations when he needed one. When his new religion didn't grow past a few hundred people, he started spreading it by violence and force and it continued until his death. It's laughable to defend him as a 'perfect model of behavior'.

One of you muslim apologists pipe up here and tell me where I'm wrong and where Mohammed didn't do these things.

Hey also show me some verses where Jesus spoke the words of Satan himself. Ooops he never did that, Mohammed did. This is the infamous 'Satanic Verses' that muslims want to hide so badly and that's why Salman Rushdie has a price on his head.

Your argument is so thin. Provide some proof that Islam is a religion of peace and tranquility, serving mankind.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2007 1:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
> "How much of the narrative in your examples do we see in Christianity today, or even in the past 1000 years? ZERO. "

Zero? Err, it was less than 500 years ago that the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre took place, with children happily dragging headless corpses through the streets of Paris...many of those people killed by priests, no less. Not long after this, Emperor Ferdinand's efforts to suppress Protestantism led to wars that reduced the population of Germany by as much as 75%.

A little more than 300 years ago, people were burning women alive in the name of Christ, at the Salem Witch trials. Back in Europe, Jews were regularly being persecuted, killed, and forcibly converted to Christianity.

Just over 150 years ago, again in America, the 1838 Mormon War took place in Missouri, in which the "infidel Mormons" were killed (including women and children), had their homes burned and property seized, and were eventually driven from the state entirely.

Little over 100 years ago, women in many Christian nations couldn't vote or own property independently, due to "good Christian" interpretations of biblical scripture.

30 years ago, the Christian "prophet" Jim Jones was convincing people to commit suicide in Jonestown Guyana...and murdering anyone who refused. 900 died in that one incident alone, including 300 small children.

The nonsense that Christian violence ended "a thousand years ago" is total rubbish.

> "we don't shoot children in the back ..."

Actually, there's an eyewitness report of a Mormon child being shot in the back by a "good Christian" during the war I mention above.


RE: this is why i love america
By TellindaTroof on 1/23/2007 2:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
Masher2,

You forgot Timothy McVeigh -white Christian. These brief isolated periods of time and events just don't measure up to the Islam's basic tenets that have existed since Mohammed created it and then changed from peaceful prophet to murderous thug, convert, subjugate or kill unbelievers. Apply sharia law to any society you conquer. You just don't see this in Christianity.

Sure, I wholeheartedly agree that groups of people throughout time have done some horrible things in the name of Christ. Their interpretation of the Bible was wrong and they are to be condemned. I've mentioned in another post that some of Crusaders were absolutely brutal. There's no excuse for that. But since then you just don't see the same behavior vs. that of muslims. You just don't see Christian mujahadeen driving the streets of any country carrying out atrocities or trying to impose their way of on people at the end of a barrel.

Jim Jones was a egomaniacal psycho. He hardly massacred all those people in the name of Christ. He was not well in the head.



RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2007 2:59:13 PM , Rating: 3
> "These brief isolated periods of time and events just don't measure up..."

Sounds like you're in fast retreat from your earlier statement of "zero in a thousand years"! However, while christian violence may be "isolated" today, it was par for the course 500 years ago...far more so than Islam is today.

And, of course, what you fail to recognize is that violence in Islam is isolated as well. I've visited dozens of foreign nations, including several that are Muslim-majority, such as Malaysia. Never once saw a violent event, or felt threatened in any way.

Let me give you an example that may be illustrative. Cities have the highest usage of chlorinated drinking water. Most AIDS cases occur in cities. Conclusion: chlorinated water causes AIDS. Silly, eh? That's exactly the same fallacy you're making with Islam though. Some nations are more violent than others. Many of those nations are Muslim. False conclusion: Islam incites violence. Most of those third-world nations would have as much violence, if not more, without Islam than they would with it.


RE: this is why i love america
By TellindaTroof on 1/23/2007 3:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
So that's your big victory? Good one. Only liberals and the French retreat so quickly.

Didn't you see what happened when those cartoons portraying muslims as being violent came out? How many millions of muslims reacted with.... violence? They called of the death of cartoonists. This wasn't a small isolated incident with only a few extremists. Muslims worldwide reacted violently. Jesus Christ is continually degraded in the art community and elsewhere and all we do is shake our heads. We don't call for the beheadings of the artists.

You can have the last word. I've got to get busy making my e-Penis bigger. That was a good conversation.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2007 3:38:26 PM , Rating: 3
> "Only liberals and the French retreat so quickly..."

Sorry, but you'll have a hard time sticking a "liberal" label on me.

> "Didn't you see what happened when those cartoons portraying muslims as being violent came out? How many millions of muslims reacted with.... violence?"

I saw one incident of a nun being shot that was suspected of being connected. Other than that, I saw a few protests that were about as violent as your average Greenpeace rally. Did I miss something? Out of 1.3 BILLION Muslims, this is your evidence of "widespread Muslim violence"?

> "We don't call for the beheadings of the artists..."

No, but there's quite a few Christians calling for the deaths of abortion doctors.




RE: this is why i love america
By InsaneGain on 1/26/2007 6:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
Also, Masher2 what is your point? The debate is whether or not Islam encourages violence, not whether or not Christianity has a spotless record in this regard. So are you conceding the fact that presently Islam incites violence, but Christianity did as well in the past ? Personally, I don't care if Christianity was or was not a religion of peace, it's irrelevant - also, I'm agnostic - but what is relevant is if a significant number of people are being incited towards hatred and violence towards innocents by Islam TODAY.


RE: this is why i love america
By InsaneGain on 1/26/2007 6:05:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'm just curious, Masher2, are you a historian with a specialty in religion? Otherwise, how can you readily come up with passages from the bible that describe violent acts?


RE: this is why i love america
By InsaneGain on 1/26/2007 3:41:06 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you did do your research. Where did you read this? I am interested in the true history of Islam and I also read that Mohammed was a ruthless caravan robber. Just recently, I read an article that right now in Saudi Arabia, the textbooks used by children teach that Jews are descended from pigs and that Christians are from monkeys, and all "non-believers" are to be hated. This was a bit of scandal because after 9/11, Saudi Arabia quietly promised to the U.S. government that all such teachings would be stopped. Apparently, there is an extremist Wahhabist sect in Saudi Arabia that allows the Saudi Royal family to remain in power in exchange for allowing them to control the social aspects of society. This includes the teaching of intolerance and hatred of foreigners. Saudi Arabia is without a doubt, the epicenter of the problem. As for everyone writing that most Muslims are moderate, how moderate were the millions across the globe when some cartoonists depicted Mohammed?


By TellindaTroof on 1/23/2007 9:42:28 AM , Rating: 2
I did not intend to paint all muslims as terrorists. They aren't. The fact remains that Islam is a violent religion, Christianity is not. Look what happened when the pope quote a Byzantine ruler about the Islam being a violent religion or whatever. How did muslims around the world react? They went nucking futs with violence and called for his head. Doesn't anyone see this as ironic?

quote:
And speaking of Muslim countries attacking neighbors - that's pretty fucked up shit, I have yet to see a single Muslim country that attacked its neighbor just to convert them to Islam.

I never said that they attack another country only to convert them. Look around at every shooting war around the world. Muslims are involved. It's very simple if you read the Q'uran and any true history of Mohammed. Muslims are commanded by Allah to slay unbelievers. They liken jews to pigs and monkeys. It's all there for anyone to read. The hadiths (customs of Mohammed) are chock full of sick twisted behavior by this perfect model of behavior. Ordering the slaughter of innocents, ordering the assasination of his detractors, polygamy, sex with slaves, and this little gem of perfect behavior: Mohammed took a 6 year old wife, Aisha, and popped her cherry when she was 9. She was his favorite wife. You don't hear about these things in the media and from other apologists for Islam. Never. So they never have to defend Mohammed's actions, they are never called to account.

What is really transparent about Mohammed and his 'revelations' from Allah is this; time and time again when Mohammed was in a situation, he magically received a revelation from Allah to satisfy his own personal desires or to fix some sticky situation. It's freaking hilarious. Most muslims don't know what is in the Q'uran and and they can only recite the verses that are positive and uplifting. there are many accounts of muslims looking closer at a translation of the Q'uran and being quite disgusted so they became apostates. Oh speaking of apostates, under Sharia law, the penalty for converting away from Islam is death! Anyone care to defend that? Sharia law is the governmental system under Islam and it is the highest law to a true muslim. Somebody please tell me that I'm full of crap, there's no such thing as Sharia law and that muslims don't want to spread it all over the globe. Give me some facts, maybe some reassurance from some imams that I'm wrong.

The mosques in Anytown, USA don't teach the violent parts of the Q'uran as far as we know. The UK however, is diffent. Wahhabism is making huge advances in Europe due to the pacifism of France and other countries there.

Muslims won't tell you that Mohammed was a thief, not a common thief, but an exceptionally good one. His band of thugs would attack caravans, killing all the men, raping the women and keeping them as slaves. Then when it came time to split up the booty, Mohammed would once again get a magical revelation that God's Messenger is to get 1/2 the booty. Hey! I'm God's messenger! I guess that means I get 1/2 the booty! Hey that guy is still alive, cut off his head! Other times they would spare the lives of those they conquered if they converted to Islam or they would make a pact where those conquered would live as dhimmis, the lowest class of citizen. The dhimmis were another source of income for the muslim societies. They were forced to pay a poll tax. This was one of the 3 choices they had: Conversion, dhimmitude or death.

Another great thing about Islam is how they treat women. They'll tell you that women are held in the highest regard in muslim society. Under Sharia law, if a woman accuses a man of rape, she must provide like 4 male witnesses to back her up. If she can't provide witnesses, she has admitted to adultery and will be stoned to death. Mohammed's child-wife, whose cherry was popped by Mohammed at age 9, said (paraphrasing)"No one has suffered more that the muslim woman". I've said this before in another post: A few years ago (I think) Saudi virtue police prevented 15 schoolgirls from escaping a buring building because they didn't have on their proper Islamic dress. The 15 girls died, were burned to death, because they couldn't be seen in public without their scarves. These people aren't the radicals shooting up Iraq. This is the police force in Saudi Arabia. Somebody please defend these muslims. Let's hear it. "Oh they are extremists, I know a white police office that would do the same thing at a black school".

There is so much more about the beginnings of Islam and this isn't the forum for it. I welcome any rebuttals though, someone tell me I'm wrong here.

But most people won't ever hear any of these facts anywhere unless you seek the truth yourselves.


RE: this is why i love america
By TellindaTroof on 1/23/2007 9:50:39 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah the individuals are just fine. Here's a peaceful muslim individual who was upset about a movie portraying muslim treatment of women:

From Wikipedia:


Mohammed Bouyeri assassinated van Gogh in the early morning of Tuesday November 2, 2004, in Amsterdam in front of the Amsterdam East borough office (stadsdeelkantoor) on the corner of the Linnaeusstraat and Tweede Oosterparkstraat streets. He shot him with eight bullets from a HS 2000 (a handgun produced in 2000 in Croatia), and Van Gogh died on the spot. Bouyeri slit van Gogh's throat and then stabbed him in the chest. Two knives were left implanted in his torso, one pinning a five-page note to his body. The note (Text) threatened Western governments, Jews and Hirsi Ali (who went into hiding). The note also contains references to the ideologies of the Egyptian organization Takfir wal-Hijra.



RE: this is why i love america
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 3:10:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Mohammed Bouyeri assassinated van Gogh in the early morning of Tuesday November 2, 2004, in Amsterdam in front of the Amsterdam East borough office
Yeah, I know there are crazy fanatics like that. So, now by the same logic should I treat, say, all Germans as deserving death just because some Germans were, you know, doing some "bad" (can't find the correct word here) things to Jews in concentration camps? No, seriously, man, you have to open you shut eyes a little wider. Just read about some atrocoties commies performed in Russia under the rule of Josef Stalin, or the same Germans under the rule of Adlof Hitler. What I mean here is that these rare muslim fanatics are simply NOTHING compared to Nazis or Commies of Christian Europe and Russia. You have not got even a slightest idea if what was happening in Russia begnning from 1914 approximately... haha muslims, eat my a.. - I believe it when I see it. Gimme some muslim genocide that even _REMOTELY_ similar to what christian nazi or russian commies did, and then I might get interested.

Your SINGLE fanatic killing a movie director or a SINGLE pair of american skyscrapers blown up by muslim fanatics - that is still ABSOLUTELY nothing compared to (christian) russia or (christian) germany in 1920s-1240s. Sorry, man, but on the scale of Real Evil there are things that weigh a LOT LOT LOT more than your puny little muslims. At least YET.


RE: this is why i love america
By Jawadali on 1/23/2007 12:37:24 AM , Rating: 2
I don't want to stir any hostilities, but I think we should do a little more research (perhaps from multiple perspectives) before making such blanket statements. I don't want to target you alone (or anyone else for that matter), as many people make conclusions on their initial findings and impressions, and it's not entirely their fault. After all, we are mainly limited to what we see and hear in the media, and thorough research does take a good deal of time and effort, so it's not always an (quick) option. Most Muslim communities in America are more than happy to discuss and answer questions pertaining to Islam, and can help to draw a more realistic picture of the religion than what is portrayed in the media.

Sorry if this is off-topic (and long), but I’d just like to add some information to what has already been said about Islam/Muslims in relation to being “bad guys”.

I believe over the course of history, many people have used religion as a tool to promote their own agenda and to manipulate others. I don't think the religion should be blamed for the acts of a few individuals or groups. What we are seeing today in the media clearly proves the statement "little knowledge is dangerous", because a small number of Muslims take action "in the name of God" without knowing the full meaning, interpretation, and context of certain verses/revelations of the Quran and other Islamic references. These few, in turn, spread their version of fanatic "Islam", convincing others (usually younger, poorer/less-educated, people in underdeveloped countries) that "you will go to paradise by killing the infidels". It is extremely disturbing that such notions have and are being preached in countries such as the U.K. by a few groups. I am a Muslim, and I'd actually not mind temporary government investigation of religious centers, as long as after it is deemed the center is not a threat, the people are free to continue practicing their religion in peace. The Islamic community where I live is open to anyone at any time who wishes to learn about Islam (we just had an academic open-house about 2 months ago).

The essence of true Islam can be summed up in "Faith in God, and service to mankind". The prophet Mohammed (who actually tried to avoid armed conflict whenever possible) preached the many of same teachings that were also taught by the prophets Jesus and Moses. One of his quotes was that "For someone who has killed one human being, it is like killing all of humanity, and for one who has saved one human being, it is as if he has saved all of humanity." He also preached religious tolerance, and never forced anyone to convert against their will, as seen by the Charter of Privileges: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Privileges

Sadly, much of Mohammed's propagation of the true Islam was distorted by politically elected "caliphs" and other rulers who, once again, used Islam to their own gain (such as obtaining land/wealth). It was these rulers who “spread Islam by the sword” after Mohammed’s death. Corruption is not limited to any religion, as we can also see in the Papacy of Pope Alexander VI. Had the whole Muslim community at the time followed the prophet's recommended successor (his nephew Ali), Islam probably would have not been as diluted and misunderstood as it is today.



I suggest looking at a version of the Quran with English translation commentary, such as The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary ISBN: 0940368846 (Newest is 3rd ed., 2002, but older editions may be easier to get a hold of), to see how close the Abrahamic faiths really are. I also suggest reading the first four left-side links here: http://www.ezsoftech.com/akram/introductiontoislam...

Once again, I apologize if this was off-topic, but I felt that, due to the degree of misunderstanding (once again, it’s not anyone’s fault), something had to be said




RE: this is why i love america
By brownzilla on 1/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: this is why i love america
By TellindaTroof on 1/22/2007 2:08:26 PM , Rating: 5
Your debate skills are to be admired. You are obviously a muslim apologist.

Do you actually believe most muslim aggression began 40 years ago due to our meddling in their business. Read "The Truth About Mohammed" and "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" for some enlightenment as to why your peaceful muslims are the victims everywhere. It's a fact that Islam was spread by the sword. That's violence for the uneducated here.

Nazis were not Christians
I live in Oklahoma. Tim McVeigh's mass murder of 160+ people was not religiously motivated. This is a common argument used by muslim apologists.
White supremacists are few and far between. They don't rule any countries. They don't have their own form of government When is the last time you heard of one of them blowing up people? As far as I know, they don't shoot children in the back like your precious muslims did in Beslan, they haven't beheaded 3 Christian girls walking home from school in Indonesia, and I'm certain they didn't prevent schoolgirls from escaping a burning school in Saudi Arabia because they weren't wearing proper islamic dress. I've never heard of any Christian group carrying out acts like this. These kinds of things are so common, it's totally unbelievable that there are people still out there that back them.

Read up on the Crusades, it's good reading. True, there were some segments of the Crusaders that were absolutely brutal and there is no excuse for what some of them did. That doesn't justify what muslims have been doing for 1300 years.

Since you believe that muslims only attack innocent citizens when their affairs have been looked into, what did Spain do to attract the horrific train bombing they endured?

Christianity is not a violent religion. This is another argument used by muslim apologists. Where are the news stories to match even .0001% of the violence perpetrated by muslims?? Someone here tell me! There are several people here who are muslim apologists and think that I'm an asshole. Someone point me to the evidence that 'Christianity is a violent religion'. This says something about the intelligence level of much of the planet.


RE: this is why i love america
By Oregonian2 on 1/22/2007 2:41:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Christianity is not a violent religion.


It was at one time a very long time ago, and is a very embarrassing period for Christianity (of which I count myself as part of). It was very bad, but fortunately was one that is now very long behind us and was gotten over with. Just hope the maturation of Islam doesn't take as long.


RE: this is why i love america
By beepandbop on 1/22/2007 10:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
You could argue that Christianity is violent, but in no period of violence was it spurred on by religion. People have sought to use the religion to back up their claims of violence, but no where does the Bible inspire you to be violent or to force religion on others? Nowehere. Jesus even in said that "If you come upon those who resist you, turn away, leave their presence, and do not converse with them about the subject again"
But the apostles also say: "Spread the word of Joy to all corners of the world, tell everyone was God has done, for the Salvation of the world"
But it does not say: "Behead those who resist, kill the heathen, and you shall..blah blah."
The medieval popes and rulers, descendants of Barbarian warlords and the like were warlike. Christianity wasn't, but rulers adopted it because they would gain access to technologies more civilized Italian and Christian peoples had.
True, religion has been interlaced with violence, but never has Christianity been a tool of violence, never did Jesus or any Christian say "Force religion on somebody" nor did they want to force people to become Christians.
Its a twisted view many ignorants have, and the media doesn't help. Its quite understandable too, but don't you be suckered into believing it.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2007 12:09:09 AM , Rating: 3
> "but in no period of violence was [Christian violence] spurred on by religion..."

Millions of long-dead Christians beg to differ with you, including a lengthy list of Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, and other esteemed figures. It is your interpretation that the Christian bible does not incite violence. In their opinion, killing and persecuting the unbeliever and/or the errant sinner was ordained by God himself. Similarly, it is your opinion that the Quran incites violence. Some Muslims agree with you. Many, however, do not.

Starting to see a pattern here?


By CascadingDarkness on 1/24/2007 6:26:07 PM , Rating: 2
As humans we view life from one perspective. We tend not to realize that everyone is in a similar boat, but their perspective may not exactly match ours. When it comes down to it, just because theirs may be different doesn't make it wrong, and doesn't make your right. Life isn't black and white.

Murder is generally viewed as wrong, but ok in self defence, so there's grey there even.

I don't think it would hurt anyone to take a step back and try to see the world from another angle.


RE: this is why i love america
By Ringold on 1/22/2007 3:53:09 PM , Rating: 1
TellindaTroof, you're my hero.

I'm surprised, personally, that Europeans would so easily forget the circumstances surrounding perhaps the largest French military VICTORY in history! The Muslims had spread their babble across North Africa at the end of a sword, conquered Spain, and was making plain its designs on modern day France when Charlemagne proved that the French can indeed be men if they get around to it. If not for Charlemagne, I see no historical reason or other force that might've stopped the consolidation of the rest of Europe under Islamic rule.

As it is though, Byzantine held the line in the East (leave it to the descendent's of Rome to carry a burden no one else could), Charlemagne routed them in the West, and it allowed Europe to congeal in to more solid nation states thanks to the threat of Islamic invasion from all directions (except the North).

They seem to like to forget that, though. That's the kind of intellectual and moral weakness that results from decades of protection under the United States nuclear umbrella.

Regarding Christianity and violence, though.. Christianity put this sort of mass religious ideological slaughter behind it mostly after the Middle Ages. Islam is just now getting around to what Europeans did hundreds of years ago. Dangerous thing is though, Europeans had swords. Some Islamic states have nuclear weapons sitting atop long range missiles.


RE: this is why i love america
By TellindaTroof on 1/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: this is why i love america
By Ringold on 1/22/2007 5:18:48 PM , Rating: 1
Despite knowing of Islam's origins, I leave room for moderates to exist. Probably hundreds of millions of them, no doubt. I just have to make that distinction to satisfy the nit-pickers, though; I agree.

They can't be refuted because.. well.. every balanced history textbook taught from Elementary school to the collegiate level says what you've said. Some people are just more willing to see whats before them than others. For what reasons, I don't understand.

I think you posted about it, so I take it you saw that BBC 'Undercover Mosque' thing? (Thank you, bittorrent) That was scary, and I'd thought I already had a handle on their fanaticism. It's a whole level beyond what I even imagined.


By TellindaTroof on 1/22/2007 5:38:46 PM , Rating: 1
I only this morning heard about the undercover work. I heard some soundbites on the radio this morning. I'll catch the rest tonight after the OU-OSU game.

History has shown that even moderate muslims can easily be drawn out of moderation and into jihad. So I have to remain at least a little leary about those claiming to be peaceful, especially after learning how Islam absolutely allows deceit if it advances Islam. There are so many of them all over the place.



You should check out jihadwatch.org.


RE: this is why i love america
By bigpimpatl on 1/23/2007 1:20:18 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody is replying to your ignorant posts because we all (at least me) realize how fucked up you are in your thought process and logic. I have a suggestion for you: lock yourself inside your house because it's way too dangerous out their in the world with all the Muslims around, turn your tv channel to Fox News so you can listen to Hannity tell you how bad the muslims are and how much they want to suck your blood alive, and arm yourself with grenade launchers, RPGs, and AK-47's so you can protect your worthless self and your ugly ass kids when the muslims come knocking on your door. Actually, I feel really sorry for your kids that they have a huge bigot as a parent.

And for the record, just because nobody has rebutted your comments doesn't prove you're right. You're a real idiot for thinking that if you post and nobody comments that you must be right. Nobody here has the time or patience to put up with your bullshit. It's obvious to me that you're a real loser and have absolutely nothing to do with your time then to post on an internet site about how bad Islam is. I guess your idea of spending time is to bash Muslims. I have another suggestion for you to spend your time wisely: Why don't you blame all the idiots in Minneapolis who voted for Keith Ellison, the first Muslim congressman in America? Because it's obvious that he just wants to turn Congress into a safehaven for evil muslims and terrorists and eventually make Congress into a muslim organization. Go protest in DC to remove this "scourge" from Congress.



RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2007 9:42:58 AM , Rating: 2
> "we all (at least me) realize how fucked up you are...You're a real idiot...you're a real loser...your worthless self and your ugly ass kids...I feel really sorry for your kids..."

We really don't need this level of sordid personal attacks on the forum. If you respond so emotionally to forum posts, I suggest you engage in lower-stress activities. Perhaps a game or two of checkers in the privacy of your own home?



RE: this is why i love america
By TellindaTroof on 1/23/2007 10:13:24 AM , Rating: 1
This is very typical of a muslim apologist and liberal, you have no real rebuttal and can't prove me wrong so you resort to infantile personal attacks. You mischaracterize my words too. I never said all muslims are bad. The root of the problem is Islam. I've done the research, big pimp. I have the facts to back up what I've said. All you've done is make personal attacks that are so wrong it's hilarious.

You have no idea whether I'm a loser or not. I've been married for 16 years to a hot wife, I have 3 awesome (and good looking) kids at their school and a high paying job in IT. Maybe it's not as lucrative as being a Big Pimp in Atlanta but I get along OK. I'm no bigot, but I understand that it's easy to say that about those of us that are concerned about this threat. It happens all the time from liberal appeasers like yourself. My intolerance is for the violence that comes from Islam. I think it's justified.

I worry about the future of our country and the way of life we have here. The biggest threat to that is Islam. Have you heard about that guy in Iran that wants to wipe Israel and us off the map? Do you think he's just kidding around? He's going for nukes. The game changes then. What will you think if a terrorist blows up an Atlanta transit bus or goes into a mall and shoots 50 people? It might not affect your pimp and ho business so you may not care.

Do the research about Mohammed and the basic tenets of Islam. Then come back and tell me that the prophet of Islam is a good model of behavior.



RE: this is why i love america
By bigpimpatl on 1/23/2007 1:38:37 PM , Rating: 2
If you are so worried about your future, why don't you go serve in the military to fight Islam? You still didn't respond to my comment about Keith Ellison. Go attack him and the democrats who support him. Because they all obviously haven't had the same "revelations" that you have had...

And hello are you awake? You just said Islam is the problem. Well, muslims are followers of ISLAM. If you change Islam, then it's followers aren't muslim anymore! And Christianity is not a violent religion? give me a break. Ever heard of the Inquisition? Indulgences? The Crusades? the KKK? Witch hunts? almost every war during the 14th-17th century in Europe?

You know I really can't blame you for ignorance. Sadly, you are a product of your environment. Look, I really don't care about your E-penis. You obviously have only one perspective of the whole issue so arguing with you is like talking to a stone. If you want to actually learn something, go to your local mosque and ask for a copy of the Quran in arabic/english. Heck, if you don't want to even do that, I will find one for you and ship it to you. While you are there, you can talk to the Imam or Sheikh in charge and I am sure he can answer all your questions.

I am not an encyclopedia where I can just list a million facts and prove you are wrong on a post on a website that has nothing to do with the issue you brought up. I don't have the infinite time that you seem to have to keep posting about this topic. The only way I could prove you wrong is to right at a minimum, a 10 page essay. Or I could just read the Quran to you. Look, I am really sorry if I offended you but you come off as a person who has just heard one side of the story. You are being told half-truths, plain and simple. Again, I implore you to visit your local mosque or you can email me if you want and I will try to find some good literature for you, or get someone to contact you, if you'd like.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2007 2:11:30 PM , Rating: 3
> "If you want to actually learn something, go to your local mosque and ask for a copy of the Quran..."

You can find plenty of support in the Quran for the belief that Islam is a religion of violence. Or a religion of peace. It is, in that respect, identical to the christian bible.

In the final analysis, it doesn't matter whats in either book. What matters is what its followers believe to be in it. Some followers of Islam are quite violent. Not nearly as bloodthirsty as were Christians when their religion was only 1300 years old...but somewhat more so, on the average, than the average Christian of today.

Now, what one makes of those facts is up to them.


By TellindaTroof on 1/23/2007 3:12:25 PM , Rating: 1
First the litany of personal attacks that aren't even close and now I have an e-penis? What you said didn't offend me at all. It was rather humorous because non of it it true. This kind of thing just so easily comes from a liberal appeaser.

Muslims are going to continue attacking westerners and western interests no matter what we do. If we appease them, it will be worse. Islamic culture see that as weakness and they ratchet up the pressure. They perpetrated 9/11 and have designs on doing far worse.

I didn't respond about Keith Ellison because I was too busy foaming at the mouth about everything else. What I think about that subject: Islam requires that Sharia law be the highest law of the land. This doesn't jive with our Constitution being the highest law of the land. Therefore if Keith Ellison is a Muslim Lite, he may be able to uphold the Constitution. If he believes that Mohammed is a perfect model of behavior, in spite of the facts about Mohammed, then I don't see how he will uphold our laws. Putting my tin hat on again, I'm worried that this is the beginning of more and more muslims gaining power here.

A 10 page essay wouldn't prove me wrong, since we are dealing with opinions here.

What is your opinion of the imams down at the 'local mosque' in London that were on Channel 4 over there? Do you think that is only an isolated mosque and that kind of preaching isn't going on anywhere else?

I don't understand, and maybe I'm just a stupid asshole, stone-head with a big e-penis, how anyone can read the Q'uran and more importantly the hadiths of Mohammed and not be repulsed by the origins of the religion. It's completely ignored. I guess you liberals think it would be OK for us to all be taken back to the 7th century?

It's easy to come off looking like one thing or another. Email can't convey feelings and you have no idea what sides I've heard about. I'm have strong feelings about one side of it after researching it on my own.


By CascadingDarkness on 1/24/2007 7:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
Islam is the big threat then. We should defend ours right? Kill them before they kill us. I suppose you are the one who can point out which people of Islam are moderate enough to not be a risk. You did say that even moderates can be whipped into jihad though so I suppose we will have to kill them all except the very most docile. Maybe we can put collars on them too just to keep track of them.

I don't know about you, but I sure can't condemn a whole people (or even one person) to die just because they may be out to get me. I don't know about you but I couldn't forgive myself even if I killed in self defense. I try my best to give people benefit of doubt. I don't see people and instantly decide I know anything about them. Every one you kill is someone's son/daughter, maybe their a parent, maybe they were a good person that made one mistake. How can you know? It sure makes it a lot easier labeling them as bad/evil/wrong.

I guess I believe in forgiveness and understanding. I try not to judge because when it comes down to it they are human just as I. You might think I'm a fool (I know I am), but I'd rather die in a terrorist bombing than kill someone's parents.


RE: this is why i love america
By Jawadali on 1/23/2007 8:09:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nobody is replying to your ignorant posts



I attempted (read my post above). The post sorting system here is a little confusing.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 4:46:45 PM , Rating: 1
I wouldn't give the French credit for Charlemagne. He was a Frank. Yes, the French are descended from the Franks-- but so are the Germans, and we see which of the two received all the warrior genes. :p


RE: this is why i love america
By otispunkmeyer on 1/23/2007 3:41:03 AM , Rating: 1
what ever mate, WWII was not won just because of you. america is not the sole nor the major reason that Nazi germany was toppled.

i dont believe islam is a religion of peace, but there has to be a reason they wanna blow you lot up, they dont just do it for fun. the US has infuriated them in someway....medling.

like i said america and the western world has brought it all on themselves.


RE: this is why i love america
By InsaneGain on 1/27/2007 12:14:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the US has infuriated them in someway....medling.


It hasn't occured to you that perhaps the Islamic extremists perceive the secular western world as a corrupting and tempting influence to the youth of Islam, and must be eliminated in order to preserve Islam? Should the U.S. address this grievance and attempt to cease all cultural contact with the Middle East? Should society in general encourage the use of violence to achieve goals by giving into their demands.


RE: this is why i love america
By pauldovi on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/2007 9:15:32 AM , Rating: 3
He is right though, wars should be a thing of the past. How can you possibly disagree with him on that? And he is hardly whining about the United States, like said, just saying that weapons, and thus wars, should be history. It may sound naive, but think about it, it really is not. Nowadays, we luckily have other options like (hard) diplomacy and economic sanctions. Military action should be used only as a last resort and only with a United Nations mandate to prevent countries from starting wars for their own benefit. We all know that some countries often choose the military option too soon, before the diplomatic option is even considered. The Iraq war is an example, an illegal war, without United Nations mandate.

About World War II, I for one am glad that the United States joined the allies after they were attacked themselves first, but why always the specific mention of the US alone? The United States played an important role - and don't get me wrong, I am not at all downplaying that role - but realize that it's just plain insulting to the other allies - whose casualties were far greater than that of the US - to suggest that the Germans fell because of the United States alone. Especially the British, but many other countries as well, fought Nazi Germany for years before the US even joined the allied forces. The Germans were in a weakened state after years of fighting, and combined with the failure that was Operation Barbarossa, it can be argued that this was the main reason for the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Finally, it's not true that mainland Europe relies on the United States for defense. The NATO was absolutely necessary after World War II to prevent an Soviet invasion of mainland Europe, but today, that threat no longer exists. Heck, even the Soviet Union itself is gone. Europe has, after the United States only, the most powerful military in the world, and no country today is foolish enough to attack Europe. Furthermore, both the British and French have enough nuclear weapons to obliterate any country on the planet five times over. So we can disband the NATO then? Not necessarily, and I personally believe it's still a good thing that the Western nations cooperate militarily. It's, for example, far easier to coordinate United Nations peacekeeping missions that way.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 9:25:13 AM , Rating: 5
> "wars should be a thing of the past. How can you possibly disagree with him on that?"

No one is disagreeing that warfare should be prevented. The disagreement is over the possibility of it happening...and the actions one should take in the meantime.

> "Nowadays, we luckily have other options like (hard) diplomacy and economic sanctions."

Nowadays? Even the ancient Greeks practiced diplomacy and economic sanctions (restriction of trade routes). It didn't prevent all warfare then either.

> "Military action should be used...only with a United Nations mandate ..."

If the Chinese government begins (once again) to engage in the wholesale slaughter of millions of its own citizens, its Security Council veto will assure that no action is approved against it. Does that mean you'd wish the world to sit idly by while it happened?

> "About World War II, I for one am glad that the United States joined the allies after they were attacked themselves first, but why always the specific mention of the US alone? "

Easy question. Because most of those other nations have given up protecting themselves, much less anyone else in the world. Worse, they spend their time complaining about the US military, even while its bases on their own soil ensure their domestic tranquility, at no cost to them.



RE: this is why i love america
By mino on 1/22/2007 10:08:54 AM , Rating: 2
Bet people would wish that! Let alone for single reason of avoiding WW#...

On that matter. Your logic implies that after US invasion of Iraq the chinese (and russians for that matter) were entitled to open fire on US ???
And that was an INTERNATIONAL dispute. Not to mention som civil war in China(however improbable) being domestic one!

Chose your words more carefully or you may sound like JWB.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 10:20:26 AM , Rating: 2
> "Not to mention som civil war in China(however improbable)..."

Civil war at some future point in China is hardly improbable. In any case, I wasn't speaking of civil war, but of the mass slaughter of innocent civilians, not enemy combatants, such as we saw in Rwanda or Bosnia.

Certain people like to focus on Iraq, and ignore the fact that the NATO action against Milosevic also failed to receive UN approval. I'm curious, do you consider that one unjustified as well?

> "Your logic implies that after US invasion of Iraq the chinese (and russians for that matter) were entitled to open fire on US ??? "

Another fact often ignored on discussions about Iraq. The country had been for a decade firing upon US and British overflights in the region. By long-standing international law, each and every one of those attacks justified full-scale warfare up to and including invasion.


RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 10:58:05 AM , Rating: 5
> "Every war without United Nations mandate is illegal according to international law..."

I'm sorry, but this isn't even remotely close to true. There are several sources of international law besides the UN, such as international treaties....and the legal principle of jus cogens overrides all others, even the UN charter. Finally, even under the UN charter, many military actions don't require a specific mandate to be legal, such as response to belligerent actions.

> "Iraq is a hell hole now, with estimates of over 600,000 human casualties as a result of the war too..."

Not estimates believed by anyone who doesn't have a political axe to grind. And it still doesn't compare to the 6+ million killed by Hossein, now does it?



RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: this is why i love america
By Ringold on 1/22/07, Rating: 0
By CascadingDarkness on 1/24/2007 7:51:55 PM , Rating: 2
Am I the only one sick of WWII references? That war happened two generations ago. We need to learn from the past, not hold it over peoples heads. Things of the past have absolutely nothing to do with if we are doing things right in the present. (This comment seriously has nothing to due with Iraqi Freedom. I would make same comment anytime.)

BTW I am an American. My grandfathers served in WWII and I am never going to forget stories they passed to me.


RE: this is why i love america
By goz314 on 1/22/2007 12:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and the legal principle of jus cogens overrides all others, even the UN charter.


I'm glad you brought that point up. But isn't waging agressive warfare prohibited within the bounds of jus cogens?


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 12:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
> "I'm glad you brought that point up. But isn't waging agressive warfare prohibited within the bounds of jus cogens? "

Yes. However, under jus cogens, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait gave Kuwait and its allies the legal power to reciprocate in any fashion up to and including invasion and regime change. That conflict was concluded by the signing of an armistice, in which Iraq agreed to certain conditions. Conditions that everyone, including the UN itself, agrees Iraq failed to meet...and certainly failed to meet under the original timeline. Therefore, the original peace treaty is invalid, and resumption of hostilities legal.

Even disregarding that argument, Iraq engaged in hostile attacks on US and British forces several times in the decade following Desert Storm, by firing upon UN-approved overflights in the security zones. Each and every one of those acts is, under jus cogens, justification for retaliatory action.


RE: this is why i love america
By goz314 on 1/22/2007 12:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I wasn't really getting at justifications for the current situation in Iraq, but thanks for trying.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 12:56:06 PM , Rating: 1
What then, sir, were you getting at?


RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 10:28:53 AM , Rating: 2
> "we have means to prevent war nowadays..."

We have the means today to prevent rape, murder, and spitting on sidewalks also. I don't see it happening though.

> "It's today possible for a country to be isolated completely from the rest of the world."

You mean...as isolated as North Korea is? It hasn't them from building nuclear weapons...and isolation alone certainly won't stop them from using them.

Isolation is a tool. But when its the only tool in your belt, you're not going to build a house.

> "It can be said similarly that the United States vetoes every action against Israel, even though they keep suppressing large parts of the Palestinian population and even though they are in violation of many UN resolutions..."

You're making my point for me. An interesting debating tactic you have. The UN is not a panacea for the world's ills. Thanks for agreeing.

> "As said before, Europe has the most powerful military in the world..."

Not hardly. The distinguishing characteristic of a military force is both the will to fight and the ability to act together. The various forces of multinational Europe certainly lack the latter characteristic...and many of them lack the former as well.



RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 11:26:25 AM , Rating: 1
> "Are you serious? We can of course prevent rapes and murders..."

16,000+ people are murdered each year in the US alone, and far more are raped. Worldwide, the figures are, of course, far higher. Our "ability" to prevent all rape and murder is about as succesful as your belief we can prevent all warfare. So much for that.

> "That is not to say that we can prevent war completely...".

Which is what I've been saying since the first post. Glad to see you on board finally.

> "So, we should attack [North Korea] instead then? Is that what you imply?

I imply exactly what I wrote. That isolation alone cannot and will not solve the world's problems, nor will it prevent all wars. Such a belief is extremely naive.




RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: this is why i love america
By Grast on 1/22/2007 12:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that both of your arguments are flawed in regards to diplomacy and economic sanctions. If you listen to the rants of the current major terrorist organizations, their major issue is our use of diplomacy and economic sanctions to control their culture and governments. So both of your conclusions that deplomacy and economic sanctions are a good thing is completely false.

Naked force has resolved more issues than an other form of diplomacy or economic sancations. One could also say that, diplomacy and economic sancations are naked force disguiesed with a white gloves.

In regards to your arguement about the U.N., as an American I only can about one document, my constitution. All other treaties and agreements are complied with so long as it benefits our country. While I disagree with war in Iraq, I could give to shiXXs about whether the U.N. disagrees. The U.N. is the most corrupt organization on the planet.

Later..


RE: this is why i love america
By Grast on 1/22/2007 12:34:53 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that both of your arguments are flawed in regards to diplomacy and economic sanctions. If you listen to the rants of the current major terrorist organizations, their major issue is our use of diplomacy and economic sanctions to control their culture and governments. So both of your conclusions that deplomacy and economic sanctions are a good thing is completely false.

Naked force has resolved more issues than an other form of diplomacy or economic sancations. One could also say that, diplomacy and economic sancations are naked force disguiesed with a white gloves.

In regards to your arguement about the U.N., as an American I only can about one document, my constitution. All other treaties and agreements are complied with so long as it benefits our country. While I disagree with war in Iraq, I could give to shiXXs about whether the U.N. disagrees. The U.N. is the most corrupt organization on the planet.

Later..


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 12:54:36 PM , Rating: 3
No, Qi is correct in saying that diplomacy is preferable in resolving conflicts. What he though (and others like him) forget is that diplomacy is only effective as an alternative to force when that option of force exists. Nations only talk when they fear the consequences of failing to do so.

If your diplomacy isn't backed up by the presumption of force, then its no more than idle yapping...and anyone you talk to will consider it as such.


RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/2007 12:39:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You yourself posted "we have the means to prevent war nowadays". I certainly read that as implying you felt that a total cessation of warfare was possible. If I mistook what is, to me, the very clear meaning on that phrase, then I apologize.
If I say that we can prevent wars nowadays, how is that wrong? We can prevent wars, and we have prevented wars. Does that mean that we can prevent all wars? No, it doesn't, and I haven't said that we can prevent all wars. No need to apologize though, it was perhaps better to say that we can prevent certain wars. My native language is not English, so I guess it's very possible for a native English speaker to misinterpretate my posts at times.
quote:
You also agreed with me that the UN is a flawed entity, that often fails to approve needed military action. So what do you do when diplomacy fails, when isolation fails, and the UN itself fails to act? Lay down and die?
If, for example, the United States is attacked by a hostile nation, I am sure that the United Nations would fully support action against the aggressor. In the past, when Iraq invaded Kuwait the United Nations gave its mandate, and war against Iraq was legitimate. So the United Nations has its flaws, but it's not fair to say that it has no power at all, and the mandate for Operation Desert Storm is a good example.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 12:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
> "If I say that we can prevent wars nowadays, how is that wrong? We can prevent wars..."

You didn't say we can prevent wars, you said we can prevent war . A subtle difference, if English isn't your native language, but it certainly implied that we have the means to prevent any and all wars.

> "when Iraq invaded Kuwait the United Nations gave its mandate, and war against Iraq was legitimate..."

Which is why the invasion of Iraq was itself legitimate. It was no more than a continuation of Desert Storm which, due to Iraq's failure to meet the terms of the original armistice, was a an action that was never concluded.


RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/2007 1:42:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You didn't say we can prevent wars, you said we can prevent war . A subtle difference, if English isn't your native language, but it certainly implied that we have the means to prevent any and all wars.
You are right, subtle difference indeed and a mistake on my part. It was a typo. Even though my native language isn't English, I do know the difference between 'war' and 'wars'. I find it a bit strange however that you mention this typo specifically, out of all the things that I've said. You mention this typo perhaps to emphasize your own point somewhat, but you do ignore parts of my posts in which I've clearly said that military action is still possible and that wars (with the 's') can be prevented. To give you some quotes:

Military action should be used only as a last resort and only with a United Nations mandate to prevent countries from starting wars for their own benefit.

You are of course right in saying that wars are still a possibility, but I am not saying otherwise, I even acknowledge that in my post.

...it's just not yet realistic to prevent warfare completely.

Similarly, it can be said that the international community prevents wars quite often by diplomacy and sometimes economic sanctions. That is not to say that we can prevent war completely, again, I said that previously already, but we should strive to prevent wars completely, and prevent as many wars and conflicts as we can.

Please read my posts more carefully then, I've said all along time that warfare can't be prevented completely.

Reading my posts again, I am not sure why you misunderstood me all the time. Besides that one typo, I was not that vague. In fact, I was quite clear.

quote:
Which is why the invasion of Iraq was itself legitimate. It was no more than a continuation of Desert Storm which, due to Iraq's failure to meet the terms of the original armistice, was a an action that was never concluded.
It's irrelevant what one member, in this case the United States, decides unilaterally. The United Nations is a multilateral organisation and we all know that many UN members disagreed with the 2003 Iraq invasion. You can only legally go to war with a mandate, and since the invasion had no mandate, it was an illegal war.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 2:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
> "I find it a bit strange however that you mention this typo specifically..."

Ah, but this "typo" was what began the entire debate. And it took you several posts to even acknowledge it as a mistake. Futhermore, when I myself was saying some, but not all, conflicts could be resolved peacefully, your continued debate became even more odd.

> "It's irrelevant what one member, in this case the United States, decides unilaterally..."

Not according to the UN Charter nor to the rest of international law, it isn't. When a nation is attacked, there is no need for a "UN mandate" to allow a response.


RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/2007 3:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ah, but this "typo" was what began the entire debate. And it took you several posts to even acknowledge it as a mistake. Futhermore, when I myself was saying some, but not all, conflicts could be resolved peacefully, your continued debate became even more odd.
I gave you the quotes already, I'm not doing that again. If I clearly state, about 10 times, and in different posts, what I mean, and you still don't get it, that's not my problem. I have the feeling you specifically mention just that one typo, just to emphasize your own point. As said, after reading all my posts again, I can only conclude that I was not vague at all and it was quite clear what I meant to say and what my intention was and is. In my very first post, post number one, I even mention military action as an option.
quote:
Not according to the UN Charter nor to the rest of international law, it isn't. When a nation is attacked, there is no need for a "UN mandate" to allow a response.
Oh, so a disputed shooting incident legitimates a full scale invasion of a country by thousands of military troops? If it comforts you, I suggest that you keep saying that to yourself, perhaps you will believe it eventually.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 3:15:18 PM , Rating: 3
> "Oh, so a disputed shooting incident legitimates a full scale invasion of a country by thousands of military troops? "

Now you're starting to get it. This is an indisputable element of all aspects of international law, along with article 51 of the UN Charter. This is basic fact, not open to dispute.

And just to clarify, this wasn't a single incident, but a long-standing pattern of attacks stretching over ten years, along with the refusal to meet the terms of the original armistice.


RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/2007 3:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now you're starting to get it. This is an indisputable element of all aspects of international law, along with article 51 of the UN Charter. This is basic fact, not open to dispute.
How the charter is interpretated by the United States alone is completely irrelevant, it's all about the interpretation of the United Nations as a whole. The United Nations is a democratic multilateral organisation. In this case, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United Nations declared the war illegal. To quote Kofi Annan, highest UN authority at the time:

I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.

I must say, I am extremely surprised that you continue to justify the war and deny the fact that it is illegal. Despite all the evidence to the contrary; the United Nations Secretary-General even saying that the war was illegal and not justified. Heck, even in the American media, it's in general acknowledged that the war itself was illegal. That's not to say that the American public doesn't support the troops, but it's in general believed that there was no justification for the war and that it was illegal according to international law.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 4:18:38 PM , Rating: 2
> "How the charter is interpretated by the United States alone is completely irrelevant..."

It's not how the US interprets it, it's how the entire world does so. Not once since the UN was founded has any nation, once attacked, first stopped to ask for UN approval before retaliating.

And, I notice you have once again ignored the fact that the UN charter is not the sole, nor even the supreme source of international law. Why are you afraid to reply on this crucial point? International law derives from several sources. Under none of them was the invasion of Iraq illegal.

The facts are clear. Iraq invaded Kuwait, and was attacked in turn. It surrendered and signed a peace treaty to end that conflict...but failed to live up to the terms of that treaty. Furthermore, it made several additional, unprovoked attacks on US and British forces. Therefore, the original agreement is defunct, and Iraq is, by virtue of its original, liable to continued military action against it.




RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/2007 4:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not how the US interprets it, it's how the entire world does so. Not once since the UN was founded has any nation, once attacked, first stopped to ask for UN approval before retaliating.
The decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally. That's what Annan said, and he is completely right. Even if Iraq violated resolutions, it's not up to the United States alone to decide what the sanctions would be.
quote:
And, I notice you have once again ignored the fact that the UN charter is not the sole, nor even the supreme source of international law. Why are you afraid to reply on this crucial point? International law derives from several sources. Under none of them was the invasion of Iraq illegal.
The UN charter is indeed not the sole source of international law, but you are wrong in saying that it is not the supreme source of international law. Obligations to the United Nations prevail over all other treaty obligations, as stated in the charter. And since the charter is ratified by the United States, they are bound by it.
quote:
The facts are clear. Iraq invaded Kuwait, and was attacked in turn. It surrendered and signed a peace treaty to end that conflict...but failed to live up to the terms of that treaty. Furthermore, it made several additional, unprovoked attacks on US and British forces. Therefore, the original agreement is defunct, and Iraq is, by virtue of its original, liable to continued military action against it.
That may be so, but it's still illegal for one member, in this case the United States, to impose sanctions on another member, in this case Iraq, all by itself. Only the members of the Security Council can decide on sanctions, not one member alone.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 5:01:50 PM , Rating: 3
> "Even if Iraq violated resolutions, it's not up to the United States alone to decide what the sanctions would be. "

But the US didn't "impose sanctions " and wasn't responding to violation of UN resolutions. It was responding to direct attacks against both it and its allies, as well as the repudiation of a previously-signed peace treaty. You can't dance away from the issue here. If the original action to liberate Kuwait was legal, then the subsequent invasion was as well. Period.

> "The UN charter is indeed not the sole source of international law, but you are wrong in saying that it is not the supreme source of international law..."

It is not, which any scholar of international law will quickly tell you. I don't have time to give you a thorough grounding in the subject, but opinio juris, historical custom, and international treaties are the primary sources of international law. The UN Charter (along with the Vienna Convention, the Geneva Convention, the charter of the WTO, etc.) all fall into the latter category. Paramount above all, though is the principle of jus cogens which prevents, for instance, nations signing treaties to legalize slavery or genocide.

This is all pretty basic stuff. Seriously, why not research the subject a bit before debating it?


RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/2007 5:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But the US didn't "impose sanctions " and wasn't responding to violation of UN resolutions. It was responding to direct attacks against both it and its allies, as well as the repudiation of a previously-signed peace treaty. You can't dance away from the issue here. If the original action to liberate Kuwait was legal, then the subsequent invasion was as well. Period.
The United States didn't impose sanctions? Is this a joke? They went to war with Iraq, a more serious sanction than war I cannot imagine. And again, the highest United Nations authority, the Secretary-General himself, declared the war illegal. What more evidence do you want? The war is illegal and in violation with the UN charter, period.
quote:
It is not, which any scholar of international law will quickly tell you. I don't have time to give you a thorough grounding in the subject, but opinio juris, historical custom, and international treaties are the primary sources of international law. The UN Charter (along with the Vienna Convention, the Geneva Convention, the charter of the WTO, etc.) all fall into the latter category. Paramount above all, though is the principle of jus cogens which prevents, for instance, nations signing treaties to legalize slavery or genocide.
United Nations Charter, Chapter XVI, Article 103:

In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapt16.htm
quote:
This is all pretty basic stuff. Seriously, why not research the subject a bit before debating it?
Quite hilarious that you suggest that I should research the various subjects we're talking about a bit more, while I'm the one who is giving sources constantly, while you are just making claims without backing them up at all. Where is your source about the UN charter not being superior to other treaties? I just gave you mine, directly from the United Nations website. And where is your source that the 600,000 casualty figure is wrong?


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 5:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
> "The United States didn't impose sanctions? Is this a joke? They went to war with Iraq..."

Don't play coy games. The justification for the Iraq invasion wasn't predicated on "imposing sanctions for violation of UN resolutions". It was based upon direct attacks upon the US and its allies, and was legal, a fact you have yet to dispute.

> "What more evidence do you want? "

I'd like any evidence at all, other than the statement of a corrupt career politician, with zero training in international law.

> "Where is your source about the UN charter not being superior to other treaties?"

Can you not read? I said that jus cogens is superior to the UN Charter, not other treaties. Here's a source for you:

quote:
A peremptory norm or jus cogens (Latin for "compelling law" or "strong law") is a principle of international law considered so fundamental that it overrides all other sources of international law, including even the Charter of the United Nations . The principle of jus cogens is enshrined in Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_Internatio...

You can find the same statement, albeit in French, in the bylaws of the International Court of Justice.

And here's another quote for you, straight from the UN Charter itself:
quote:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations...

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm



RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/2007 6:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you not read? I said that jus cogens is superior to the UN Charter, not other treaties.
Jus cogens is irrelevant in this case, since, as said by a previous poster already, it explicitly prohibits the waging of war. And thus, we come back at the UN charter again, which doesn't prohibit the waging of war, but ONLY with Security Council approval. And the United States didn't have Security Council approval, thus the invasion of Iraq was illegal. It's really as simple as that. You will point at the disputed shooting incident again, and say "we were attacked!" But that's bullshit as well, since the US doesn't decide alone what happens if a resolution is violated, that too is decided by the Security Council as a whole. And you will again point at Operation Desert Storm, and say that it never ended, and that the original mandate is even today still active, but even that's not true, since that mandate ended effectively when Iraqi forces where expelled from Kuwait.

quote:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations...
Being shot at, and shooting back to defend yourself, is not the same as invading a country with thousands of troops because a couple of planes were shot at above Iraqi(!) territory. That's no longer a defensive act, but an aggressive act. And these shooting incidents of which you speak are all disputed by the way.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 8:02:54 PM , Rating: 2
> "Jus cogens is irrelevant in this case, since, as said by a previous poster already, it explicitly prohibits the waging of war.."

Ah, I see you're back to "exaggerating" your claims again. Do you honestly believe this builds your credibility? Jus cogens prohibits unprovoked attacks; it most certainly does not prohibit retaliation for such attacks.

> "And you will say that [Desert Storm] never ended...but even that's not true, since that mandate ended effectively when Iraqi forces where expelled from Kuwait..."

Oops, wrong again. The original UN mandate (not that Kuwait nor the US needed one, after Kuwait was itself invaded) did NOT simply specify the expelling of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Allow me to quote Resolution 678:
quote:
The [UN] authorizes Member States co-operating with the government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implemen t resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area


Very clear. Member states are authorized to force Iraq to uphold any and all past, present, and future resolutions against Iraq. And no one, not even Kofi Annan himself, has ever attempted to claim Iraq was ever in compliance. Even after ten years.

And all this ignores the most basic principle of international law. Iraq invaded Kuwait, thereby initiating hostilities. Jus cogens authorizes response to that action, up to and including regime change. Had Iraq fulfilled the terms of the initial peace treaty, you might have a case. But they didn't, and you don't.

> "And thus, we come back at the UN charter again, which doesn't prohibit the waging of war, but ONLY with Security Council approval"

Can you not read? The UN Charter is very clear. Article 51 specifically allows for a nation to respond to an attack before the Security Council authorizes a UN response.


RE: this is why i love america
By InsaneGain on 1/26/2007 11:52:45 PM , Rating: 2
Qi, you obviously hold the U.N. up as being the only legitimate authority on what is right and wrong in the world. However, the U.N. is an impotent, ineffective organization due to one fundamental flaw: The interests of individual members often do not coincide with interests of the other members. For instance, despite being a proven regional threat, it is entirely possible that veto wielding powers of Russia and France opposed military action in Iraq because of economic ties with Saddam's regime. Currently, Russia and China oppose any effective measures be taken against Iran to stop it's nuclear program and again it is very possible that lucrative oil contracts are the reason. Iran has effectively bought itself a guarantee of U.N. inaction by buying the Chinese and Russian vetos. These individual Security Council members are acting in their own interests even if that means ignoring growing global threats. Why should the United States allow the structural ineffectiveness of the U.N. to compromise its national security? The U.N. declaring any action by a member as "illegal" simply because it is unable to confront threats itself is completely meaningless. Therefore, if the United States perceives a serious threat to its security, it reserves the right to confront that threat, regardless if you, Kofi Annan, or anybody else declare it to be illegal.


RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/2007 11:14:50 AM , Rating: 1
To complete my post, I pressed the reply button on accident.

The Clinton administration had a better relationship with the North Koreans, Albright visited them even, and when the Bush administration came into power they suddenly chose a much more aggresive stance. It can be argued that the North Koreans were threatened by the new US stance and that diplomacy failed because of this.

Check this out, an example of how the North Korean relationship was in the past. A meeting like this is now unthinkable.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/east/10/23/al...
quote:
Not hardly. The distinguishing characteristic of a military force is both the will to fight and the ability to act together. The various forces of multinational Europe certainly lack the latter characteristic...and many of them lack the former as well.
It can be argued that the British Army alone is, after United States, the powerful military in the world, let alone all the European armies combined. And you can hardly blame Europeans fom trying diplomacy first, and military action as a last resort, considering that the two last world wars originated in their backyard. Also, a European military is inevitable, it's part of the European integration process to a single European superstate. We can already see the early stages of an European military, like EUFOR and European Rapid Reaction Forces.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/2007 12:57:44 PM , Rating: 2
The North Korean problem is a complex one, and I am sure no one knows how to solve it completely. Diplomacy so far had limited success, and the economic sanctions didn't work; they still have a strong military and they even developed nuclear weapons. So, now that we tried diplomacy and sanctions does that mean that we should use military force? No, since an attack on North Korea would lead to the annihilation of South Korea and with some bad luck, if China opposes the attack, to a full scale Asian war. The best that we can do I guess is to continue to negotiate with them and just hope that they will comply eventually.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 1:07:49 PM , Rating: 2
> "So, now that we tried diplomacy and sanctions does that mean that we should use military force? No, since an attack on North Korea would lead to the annihilation of South Korea..."

A couple points. First, I never implied an attack on North Korea should be undertaken. I merely pointed out that North Korea cannot be restrained by diplomacy and isolation alone.

Secondly, if you believe the DPRK has the ability to "annihilate" South Korea, simply because of a few low-yield nukes, you are quite mistaken. The largest reason to leave the DPRK alone is the fact that an attack on the nation would lead to hundreds of thousands of North Korean refugees, starving to death, swarming across national borders and causing large scale chaos. This is the primary reason that China opposes action here...it doesn't want the headache.


RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/2007 1:56:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A couple points. First, I never implied an attack on North Korea should be undertaken. I merely pointed out that North Korea cannot be restrained by diplomacy and isolation alone.
So, lets get this straight. You more or less say that diplomacy and economic sanctions alone don't work, and that an attack on North Korea should not be undertaken. That's contradictory, unless you have other options.

quote:
Secondly, if you believe the DPRK has the ability to "annihilate" South Korea, simply because of a few low-yield nukes, you are quite mistaken. The largest reason to leave the DPRK alone is the fact that an attack on the nation would lead to hundreds of thousands of North Korean refugees, starving to death, swarming across national borders and causing large scale chaos. This is the primary reason that China opposes action here...it doesn't want the headache.
Oh, but they most certainly have that capability. Thousands of missiles are aimed at Seoul and other main South Korean cities at this very moment, and in the event of an attack on North Korea, they are launched with a simple press on a button. Kim Jong-il himself stated that if the US attacked North Korea he would turn Seoul into a "sea of fire".


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 2:10:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "Oh, but they most certainly have that capability. Thousands of missiles are aimed at Seoul and other main South Korean cities at this very moment"

Err, no. The DPRK has a hundred or so Scud-B's, a few hundred Hwa-Songs, and a handful of No-Dongs. All of them highly inaccurate and not very reliable. Even with ten times that number, they'd still fall far short of being able to "annihilate" South Korea. And that assumes that US-supplied anti-SRBM capability isn't used either.

> "You [say] that diplomacy and economic sanctions alone don't work, and that an attack on North Korea should not be undertaken. That's contradictory, unless you have other options."

No, not in the least. What I actually said is that "isolation has failed to restrain North Korea". You then misinterpreted that to mean I was advocating immediate military action. Trade sanctions have not restrained North Korea. But, so far, the threat of US retaliation has. If you have a big stick, you don't always need to use it.

Clear now?


RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/2007 3:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Err, no. The DPRK has a hundred or so Scud-B's, a few hundred Hwa-Songs, and a handful of No-Dongs. All of them highly inaccurate and not very reliable. Even with ten times that number, they'd still fall far short of being able to "annihilate" South Korea. And that assumes that US-supplied anti-SRBM capability isn't used either.
I'm sorry, but it's impossible for you to accurately know the capabilities and specifications of these weapon systems and missiles. Since North Korea is such an isolated country, and since the country is (nearly) impossible to infiltrate, little is known about its military. It is known, however, that they have at least a couple thousand missiles, of different types, and that a significant portion of those are aimed directly at South Korea. But that is just general information, we have very little accurate information. You can't make bold statements like "highly inaccurate" and "not very reliable".

And it all depends on the definition of 'annihilate'. North Korea certainly has the capability, with conventional weapons alone, thus excluding the few nuclear weapons that they have, to kill millions of South Koreans. For me, that equals annihilation.
quote:
No, not in the least. What I actually said is that "isolation has failed to restrain North Korea". You then misinterpreted that to mean I was advocating immediate military action. Trade sanctions have not restrained North Korea. But, so far, the threat of US retaliation has. If you have a big stick, you don't always need to use it.

Clear now?
I merely asked if you are an proponent of military action against North Korea, I didn't assume you was a proponent, so no misinterpretation there. About the restrainment of North Korea, I am not sure why you think they are restrained by the US threat. In fact, the opposite is true, the threat unleashed them. Because of the US threat, they developed nuclear weapons, to defend themselves against a US invasion. It's an illusion that you can restrain North Korea by threatening them, or with a big stick, as you say. It's counterproductive.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 3:26:33 PM , Rating: 3
> "it's impossible for you to accurately know the capabilities and specifications of these weapon systems and missiles.."

I know whats publically available, based on all the data we have, intelligence reports given to Congress, and the assessments of recognized experts in the field. You're free to fantasize extra capabilities if you wish, but there is no evidence to support them.

> "North Korea certainly has the capability, with conventional weapons alone, thus excluding the few nuclear weapons that they have, to kill millions of South Koreans."

Millions? Lol, no. With conventional warheads on their missiles, they might kill ten to twenty thousand tops...and that assumes they'd ignore military targets entirely, which would be a very unwise decision on their part. Take a look at the damage Iraq inflicted on Tel Aviv with its Scud missile attacks. 39 total Scuds struck the city. A grand total of 78 people died from them. That averages out to 2 deaths/missile. And today, our Patriot intercept technology is much superior to the early batteries deployed during Desert Storm.


RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/2007 3:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I know whats publically available, based on all the data we have, intelligence reports given to Congress, and the assessments of recognized experts in the field. You're free to fantasize extra capabilities if you wish, but there is no evidence to support them.
We have very little information and you really can't make bold statements like "highly inaccurate" and "unreliable". Yes, there is some information available, but realize that this information is at best incomplete, and perhaps even inaccurate.

quote:
Millions? Lol, no. With conventional warheads on their missiles, they might kill ten to twenty thousand tops...and that assumes they'd ignore military targets entirely, which would be a very unwise decision on their part. Take a look at the damage Iraq inflicted on Tel Aviv with its Scud missile attacks. 39 total Scuds struck the city. A grand total of 78 people died from them. That averages out to 2 deaths/missile. And today, our Patriot intercept technology is much superior to the early batteries deployed during Desert Storm.
Seoul one of the most densely populated cities in the world, with over 10 million people on just over 600 square kilometers. If that madman on the other side pushed the button, yes, millions of South Koreans have to fear for their lives indeed. But I can't say I'm completely surprised by your post here, you've shown in one of your previous posts already that you underestimate civilian casualties in times of war. Take the Iraq report I gave you earlier.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 4:32:42 PM , Rating: 2
> "We have very little information and you really can't make bold statements... "

Bold statements like the "millions killed" you theorized? The difference here is that I'm working off actual publicly-verifiable information. You're inventing facts and figures to suit your needs.

> "Seoul is one of the most densely populated cities in the world..."

Yes, and I took that into account in my calculations. Seoul has about 2.5 times the density of Tel Aviv. Iraq managed a kill rate of ~2/missile with its Scuds...I was extremely generous in your favor and assumed a rate 10-20X times higher. That gave me a figure of 10-20 thousand deaths.

That contrasts to your figure of "millions dead", which you apparently pulled straight from your ass.


RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/2007 4:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bold statements like the "millions killed" you theorized? The difference here is that I'm working off actual publicly-verifiable information. You're inventing facts and figures to suit your needs.
I can give you my source, that is no problem. Time Magazine is for me a respected source, nothing to think that they make things up, and here is a quote from the article I've read:

Some U.S. military officials believe that a conventional exchange with North Korea could result in as many as 1 million South Korean casualties.

Note that they speak of 'conventional' exchange. If we include the tons of chemical agents that North Korea has, and the few nukes, they can indeed kill millions of South Koreans.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1...
quote:
Yes, and I took that into account in my calculations. Seoul has about 2.5 times the density of Tel Aviv. Iraq managed a kill rate of ~2/missile with its Scuds...I was extremely generous in your favor and assumed a rate 10-20X times higher. That gave me a figure of 10-20 thousand deaths.
I strongly have the feeling that you underestimate the capabilities of North Korea. You mention Iraq again, but North Korea and Iraq are not comparable at all, North Korea is far stronger.

quote:
That contrasts to your figure of "millions dead", which you apparently pulled straight from your ass.
To make my previous statement even more bold, if North Korea decides to use their chemical agents - and we have no reason at all to think that they will not use them in times of war - they can eradicate the entire South Korean population many times over if they want.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 5:11:18 PM , Rating: 2
> "I can give you my source, that is no problem. Time Magazine..."

Heh, not only did you exaggerate your own source (changing "as many as one million" to "several million", but you totally misunderstood it as well. When Time Magazine says "a conventional exchange", they're not talking about a missile attack. They're talking about a full-scale invasion. Tanks, artillery, and the 700,000-man army the DPRK has in the DMZ. A full scale war in other words.

So, you want to try again, or are you ready to abandon this ridiculous claim that a handful of inaccurate and unreliable missiles can kill "millions" of South Koreans?




RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/2007 5:50:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So, you want to try again, or are you ready to abandon this ridiculous claim that a handful of inaccurate and unreliable missiles can kill "millions" of South Koreans?
Hammering on trivialities again? Read my post below.


RE: this is why i love america
By Clienthes on 1/23/2007 9:57:36 AM , Rating: 2
It isn't the missles. Seoul is within artillery range. Millions of Koreans will die if the North decides to attack. This is one of the few things Qi is right about.



RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2007 10:21:58 AM , Rating: 2
> "It isn't the missles. Seoul is within artillery range..."

You might want to read the thread before replying. This is what I've already said and Qi eventually agreed to. The "missile threat" is almost nonexistent; it is the DPRK's artillery, tanks, and 700,000 men in the DMZ.

As for "millions of Koreans" dead, all reasonable estimates put casualties at 250,000 to one million for a protracted conventional encounter.


By Hoser McMoose on 1/23/2007 5:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe it's just me, but I sure as hell don't want to see a war that will result in "only" 250,000 Koreans being killed! When we start talking about these kinds of numbers it doesn't really matter much if it's 100,000, 1 million or several million, it's all just a VERY bad thing that we all should try our damndest to avoid!


RE: this is why i love america
By blackseed on 1/23/2007 2:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
It is within the artillery range but it won't reach there. South Korea have been building satellite cities with high rise towers around Sould from getting artillery bombardment.

If you count 30,000 U.S. troops stationed on front lines of 38th parallel, U.S will react pretty fast if there is a full scale assault.

Blackseed


RE: this is why i love america
By wrekd on 1/22/2007 4:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Secondly, if you believe the DPRK has the ability to "annihilate" South Korea, simply because of a few low-yield nukes, you are quite mistaken. The largest reason to leave the DPRK alone is the fact that an attack on the nation would lead to hundreds of thousands of North Korean refugees, starving to death, swarming across national borders and causing large scale chaos.


I am a former US Army Soldier who was stationed on Camp Red Cloud in South Korea (1999-2000); it is a well known fact that 2nd ID stationed in the Northern part of South Korea is nothing more than a "speed bump" for the North Korean Army. 2ID covers from the DMZ to Seoul! The artillery alone that is pointed south would blow your mind. No the poster you quoted is quite right. We all should fear the amount of death that would be unleashed in the first hours of such a war. Tens of thousands of which would be US citizens and/or soldiers.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 4:26:05 PM , Rating: 3
> "No the poster you quoted is quite right..."

No, he is quite incorrect, and you have misunderstood the argument to which you replied. The poster made the statement that the DPRK's "thousands of missiles" had the capability to annihilate South Korea. He went further to claim those missiles alone could kill "millions". Both statements are false.

The DPRK army is huge; South Korea quite rightly fears the results of a conflict. The ballistic missile threat is, however, nearly nonexistent. As I've already stated, it amounts to a few hundred Scuds and Hwa-Songs, and a small handful of No-Dongs, none of which are (as of yet) nuclear capable, and all of which are, by all accounts inaccurate and unreliable.



RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/2007 5:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, he is quite incorrect, and you have misunderstood the argument to which you replied. The poster made the statement that the DPRK's "thousands of missiles" had the capability to annihilate South Korea. He went further to claim those missiles alone could kill "millions". Both statements are false.
As shown, the statements are not false. Just because it's for you unbelievable that North Korea is capable of such an act, doesn't make it untrue or impossible.
quote:
The DPRK army is huge; South Korea quite rightly fears the results of a conflict. The ballistic missile threat is, however, nearly nonexistent. As I've already stated, it amounts to a few hundred Scuds and Hwa-Songs, and a small handful of No-Dongs, none of which are (as of yet) nuclear capable, and all of which are, by all accounts inaccurate and unreliable.
I personally think that you grossly underestimate the missile threat, but that aside, there are an estimated 13,000 artileries aimed at South Korea as well. Another quote:

North Korea has an estimated 13,000 artillery sites stationed in secure bunkers, many of which are aimed at targets in and around the South Korean capital, Seoul. Such a large collection of artillery could potentially drop 300,000 shells per hour on the city.

Indeed, the presence of such a large force is seen by many as a significant threat. However, due to the fact that U.S. officials believe every fourth round has a chemical tip, the artillery arm of the DPRK military could inflict a considerable amount of casualties upon the population of South Korea.


http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/currentconflic...


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 5:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
> "Just because it's for you unbelievable that North Korea is capable of such an act, doesn't make it untrue or impossible"

It's not because "I" don't believe it. It's because you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim, and it flies directly in the face of the opinions of every person respected in the field, and every shred of data we have.

It's theoretically possible that 600 baby Hitlers, cloned just before the end of WW2, are living on the dark side of the moon. But I'm not going to believe that without evidence either. Sorry.

> "that aside, there are an estimated 13,000 artileries aimed at South Korea..."

DPRK artillery is indeed a serious threat. Glad to see you're giving up on that "millions dead from missiles" nonsense though.





RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/2007 5:43:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not because "I" don't believe it. It's because you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim, and it flies directly in the face of the opinions of every person respected in the field, and every shred of data we have.
I gave you two sources, a Time Magazine article and the About.com website. I have no reason at all to assume that Time is wrong and making things up, and About.com, with its various experts on all kind of subjects is a good source as well.
quote:
DPRK artillery is indeed a serious threat. Glad to see you're giving up on that "millions dead from missiles" nonsense though.
You choose to hammer on trivialities like typo's and exaggerated statements, like my part about the missiles, and in doing so miss most valid points made. It's a shame, really. What I meant to say was that North Korea has the capability to annihilate South Korea, and you can dispute this claim, but it's a fact. That was my original point, and I admit, I exaggerated a bit on the missile part to emphasize it. While it's entirely possible to kill thousands of South Koreans with conventional missiles alone, it's hard to kill millions with conventional missiles, I guess you are right about that. That said, my original point stands, and if the missiles are loaded with chemical or biological agents - and the North Koreans have that capability - they can indeed kill millions.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 6:08:18 PM , Rating: 2
> "You choose to hammer on trivialities like typo's and exaggerated statements, like my part about the missiles..."

Once again, you're just now admitting you "exaggerated" your statement, after defending it emotionally for a half-dozen posts. Similar to your earlier "typo" which you defended tooth and nail, before admitting the mistake.

> "I meant to say was that North Korea has the capability to annihilate South Korea...That was my original point, and I admit, I exaggerated a bit on the missile part."

More than "a bit". But let's put that behind us. Does the DPRK have the capability to "annihilate" South Korea? Your own source says "as many as a million casualties", implying it could be substantially less. I also assume it means "casualty" in the military sense, which includes wounded as well as dead. Furthermore, in Time's long-standing tradition, I also assume they've chosen the most outrageously anti-war "expert" they could find to support those figures, along with the most pessismistic estimates for any and all parameters.

Still, I think its fair to say that a protracted exchange with North Korea could easily result in half a million casualties. Is that "annihilation"? That's about 1% of the total population....In WW2, Russia may have lost as much as 20% of its total population and was not only not "annihilated", but remained the second most powerful nation on earth.

So it depends on how you define your terms. Me, I like to use the actual dictionary meaning of a word. By that, South Korea would be in no, way, shape, or form, "annihilated". However, if you want to redefine the term to fit your own needs, then by all means feel free.



RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/2007 6:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So it depends on how you define your terms. Me, I like to use the actual dictionary meaning of a word. By that, South Korea would be in no, way, shape, or form, "annihilated". However, if you want to redefine the term to fit your own needs, then by all means feel free.
Well, it depends on what they use, the North Koreans. Sure, with conventional weapons alone the casualties are still huge, but not in the millions; a million at most, as said in the source I gave previously. If they use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons however, it's safe to assume than indeed millions will die.

This is my last post by the way, it's getting late in my time zone. Interesting discussion, it was fierce at times and we even insulted each other a few times, but in the end, no hard feelings mate. We agree on many points actually, on using diplomacy first and such. And I may be European, but I myself, and most others over here, really don't hate Americans, as often said. We have so much in common actually, we're Western after all. Later guys.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 8:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough...I look forward to crossing swords with you on some future thread :)


RE: this is why i love america
By wrekd on 1/22/2007 6:07:42 PM , Rating: 2
"So, now that we tried diplomacy and sanctions does that mean that we should use military force? No, since an attack on North Korea would lead to the annihilation of South Korea..."

This is the quote that I was trying to quote you quoting... err something.

My only point is war with Korea would lead to the annihilation of the South. Maybe not immediate and total annihilation, but like Humpty you could never put the pieces back together again.

South Korea is "dug in". They have major routes rigged with "tank traps". Their purpose is to explode at strategic choke points destroying the route in order to delay northern aggression long enough for the more southern South Korean and US Forces to mount a counterattack. They also have major bridges rigged to explode for the same reasons.

Most of us do not see fighting position, bunkers and artillery batteries on our way to work. These things are in plain sight everywhere you go in Korea and are a constant reminder that war can happen at any moment and that it will be ugly.


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 6:14:43 PM , Rating: 1
It would be ugly, without a doubt. I've been to Seoul a few times myself, and, though I've never been in the DMZ, I know quite well the strength of the DPRK military.

My initial point was simple. That economic and political "isolation" of North Korea does not, by itself, restrain its actions. That I think you would agree with, given your other remarks. That statement was countered by the OP with the ridiculous claim that North Korea's handful of missiles could, at the push of a button, kill "millions" of South Koreans. A claim he eventually admitted to fabricating...so I think we're all pretty much in agreement now.

To summarize: Diplomacy is useful...but only when backed up by the threat of force. And economic sanctions alone cannot enforce world peace.


RE: this is why i love america
By Ringold on 1/22/2007 4:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
I flipped past CNN the other day and some Colonel was saying how 10,000 would die in the first hour of renewed conflict along the DMZ. He didn't specify civilian, military, just on 'our side' or 'both' sides, but it probably doesn't matter. If people think Iraq has been a rough go of things... That'd sure pop their eyes out.


By niravsanghani on 1/22/2007 2:34:03 PM , Rating: 2
One nation cannot isolate another. It's called containment. The U.S. did it to the Soviet Union.


RE: this is why i love america
By blackseed on 1/23/2007 2:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
Clinton had better relationship only just because North Korean was happy with food and oil shipments from South Korea and U.S.

First ever South Korean president (Kim Dae Jung) that won Novel Peace prize (ironically for keeping peace or giving so much to the North) at that period was being investigated for funneling money to North Korea.

"Kim may have committed illegal acts while funneling large sums of state money to North Korea without the knowledge of the National Assembly or the Korean public"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dae_Jung

Clinton and Kim did not have a better relationship, they just prolonged it with money and resource that could have been spent in better places.





RE: this is why i love america
By Qi on 1/22/2007 11:23:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're making my point for me. An interesting debating tactic you have. The UN is not a panacea for the world's ills. Thanks for agreeing.
A selective quote of what I've said. Yes, I said that I agree with you in that the United Nations has its flaws and that the organisation is not perfect. But I ask you again, what is your alternative? And if some countries act unilaterally, we should all act unilaterally?


RE: this is why i love america
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 11:30:58 AM , Rating: 1
My "alternative" is exactly what every nation today already does, which is to consider a UN to be but one of many different tools available resolving international conflicts. One tool among many.

As you've already admitted, the UN cannot solve all problems. The structure of the Security Council prevents effective action whenever the interests of one of its members are strongly challenged,which limits the UN to resolving conflicts only between minor nations. And even in those cases, the UN often lacks the willpower to enforce its own mandates.


RE: this is why i love america
By Hawkido on 1/22/2007 2:24:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Iraq war is an example, an illegal war, without United Nations mandate.


Without a mandate, yes. Illegal war, no.
The US has a permanent seat in the UN and has Veto privileges. The UN cannot declare the Iraq war illegal, unless the US wants it declared illegal. Remember the U in UN stands for USA. LOL, just kidding. I think the UN stands for Useless Negotiators. Has there been a single conflict averted by the UN? If so was the USA there in outstanding numbers (far more so than all other nations combined)? What need was there for the UN then? Oh yeah so France can have a place to come whine to, after they surrender again. (UK excluded) Euro's are whiny wimps! The have been the launching point for the past 2 world wars, and are now the nest bed of world war 3, and they have the gall to say the USA is horrible because our Commander-in-Chief (who, i truly believe, was and is trying to make a positive influence on the world) could not see the future. Some called for a change in strategy, (Anyone come up with another strategy by the way? No, I didn't think so. So I guess he is sticking with the only option available.) For those who think retreat/surrender is an option... you better go read some history, plus read Sun Tsu's Art of War and other books of proven military strategy... Victory only emboldens your enemy. They will not stop nor will they slow down, if you give them the slightest scent of victory. We (the world that is) have been giving the Islamo-Fascist movement all the encouragement they need to keep "struggling" with the media coverage of their staged and photoshopped photos. The definition of "AlJihad" is the struggle, the definition of "Jihad" is "My Struggle". The definition of "Mein Kampf" is ... Oh, that's very interesting... Hitler took a page straight out of the Quran. He was also into burning books with disagreeable material in it. He formed false agreements with neighboring countries so he could conquer them one at a time to further his expansion. He used draconian laws to curb dissent. Mohammed taught Hitler well.
Just History. Funny the Pope quotes a 900 year dead king's statement that the Islamist are a violent people, what do the Islamists do? They riot violently... Funny that.


RE: this is why i love america
By Frank M on 1/22/2007 9:30:16 AM , Rating: 1
Although I agree that pauldovi is certainly talking out of her ass, her argument is leaps and bounds above your O'Reilly-bot spewing.

Socialism? Moral Relativism? Social Secularism? Where did she say anything that even hinted at these qualities? You clearly just vomit out the same mindless soundbytes from the O'Reilly Factor whenever you encounter someone who's point of view differs from yours, no matter in which direction or to what degree.

You fail.


RE: this is why i love america
By Frank M on 1/22/2007 9:31:49 AM , Rating: 1
That should read that I agree that Arthur is talking out of her ass.


RE: this is why i love america
By otispunkmeyer on 1/22/2007 8:20:57 AM , Rating: 2
yeah wars should be a thing of the past, but i cant see it happening to be honest, not in our life time. some one has always got beef with some one else, its human nature.

ok some of the wars/events requiring CIA/FBI/Military stuffs america have been involved with have been created by them selves and their need to police the world (they put saddam in power, then went to war to get him out using WMD's as a cover for really wanting the oil -thats my opinion) but if they didnt do that would the world be any safer? who knows.

all i know is when WW3 breaks out i'll be glad america spent all that money on weapons.

and we'll still be stuck with our plastic guns, old age pensioner landrovers and not enough boots or flak jackets to go around.

the british army is shambolic considering how powerful we used to be and we're like 4th richest country? (not sure - but we aint poor)and with all the money being taxed off us i cant see why the gov wont at least provide basic equipment or living arrangements to our soldiers. its a mockery.

you dont want wars and neither do i, but you'd be a fool not to have a capable army today and rely solely on politicians to get us out of a scrape, violence is and should be a last resort and there will always be a point where violence is the only way to get what you want.

you sound like one of these idealists mate, where everything is rosy and fluffly bunny's roam around being tickled by foxes.....the real world is far from ideal, and it never will be ideal.

besides, its areas like this that lead to advancement of our race and im 100% for progress, this rail gun for example...the idea can engineered so that a rail gun could be used to propell people and objects into space. imagine that...space launches as frequently as you like and at small (relative) cost.

alot of the stuff militatry research comes up with helps with out day to day lives more than just blowing up johnny terrorist.


RE: this is why i love america
By Grast on 1/22/2007 12:42:19 PM , Rating: 2
Your whole oil comment shows your ignorance to world economics. Bush entered Iraq to engage the terrorists on their own soil. Yes, the WMD thing was a cover. Yes, the war is dragging on now. No, the war was not about oil. We have spent more money rebuilding their oil infrustructure than we could possibly get out.

The price of oil and thus gasoline in the U.S. is based on three factors.

1. Cost of a barrel of oil (Biggest flux)
2. Cost to transport and refine (100% refinement capability in the U.S. due to crappy enviroment red tape)
3. U.S. consumption (the only elastic portion of equation)

Please go to your local community college and take a world economics class, you will get a better idea on what causes prices to rise and fall.

Later...


RE: this is why i love america
By Oregonian2 on 1/22/2007 2:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
Note also that the U.S. gets very little of its total oil usage from the middle east. In terms of the U.S. doing things there for the oil, if there's any truth in that, it's to get oil for our .. cough .. allies in Europe.


RE: this is why i love america
By Ringold on 1/22/2007 5:08:11 PM , Rating: 1
Speaking of oil.. holy cow, look at this recent meteoric drop!

It's temporary (the equity markets not rallying at ALL in response tells you that it's driven by hedge fundies and not economics) but it still deals a mighty blow to those people who, like I, thought demand was less elastic than it has proven to be. If in fact it turns out to be elastic 'peak oil' could come to pass and the world wouldn't even take note as demand shrinks to match dwindling supply.

But yeah. Invade Iraq for oil? Since when, exactly, did the US have a state-operated oil company, and since when, exactly, did the free oil market collapse making such an arrangement useless to begin with?


RE: this is why i love america
By cupocoffee on 1/22/2007 10:42:06 AM , Rating: 2
Prove to me that you have the credentials to be talking about such matters and that you aren't just spewing emotional rhetoric and then I will listen.

Until then, ya'll need to chill.


RE: this is why i love america
By Locutus465 on 1/22/2007 8:36:03 PM , Rating: 2
Americans (I am one) feel the same way, unfortunetly not everyone in the world does. Until we can all agree to lay down arms, one must defend them selves... And it's always best to be on top of the situation...

Besides, all this military hardware is good in practical terms as well... Look at nylon, microwaves, radar, computers, satallite technology, the internet, list goes on...


RE: this is why i love america
By InsaneGain on 1/26/2007 2:07:05 PM , Rating: 2
We make war so that we may live in peace - Aristotle

Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum - Let him who desires peace prepare for war - Vegetius

Those nice weapons and the money The U.S. spends on them are one of the major factors that have kept continental Europe relatively peaceful for the past 60 years. Or do you think Stalin and his successors would have been intimidated by the aggressive swinging of German sausages?


RE: this is why i love america
By Suomynona on 1/22/2007 7:02:46 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, let's envy or be proud of the best destructive force in the world.


RE: this is why i love america
By zsdersw on 1/22/2007 7:11:38 AM , Rating: 3
Mutually assured destruction has maintained peace between the US and many countries for a long time.


RE: this is why i love america
By Mingon on 1/22/2007 1:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/292568/Hot+s...

UK with us funding has lead the field for years. I worked on em guns 12 yrs ago.


RE: this is why i love america
By Relion on 1/22/2007 2:39:17 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah...I'd be proud too...I could kill small children in their houses...or just some other civilians...oh...the technology !!! /sarcasm off


RE: this is why i love america
By hubajube on 1/22/2007 4:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah...I'd be proud too...I could kill small children in their houses...or just some other civilians...oh...the technology !!! /sarcasm off
This is the talk of an ignorant child. Don't you have some chores or homework to do?


RE: this is why i love america
By coramba on 1/23/2007 7:08:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
seriously all the stuff you guys make would make me hella proud of america....SR-71 alone would make me proud, that is the most beautiful machine on the planet.

the only thing SR-71 is good enought, it is "make me hella proud", and no more...
its cost is too high even for US... and Russian Foxbat (MiG-25) is weaker on some points, but is cheap enought to launch its batch production... ;)


firing rate
By melgross on 1/22/2007 7:40:49 AM , Rating: 2
One of the most interesting questions is what the refire rate will be.

If they can fire several times a minute, that could be devastating.

The 64 megajoule model will fire at least 26 kilograms at Mach 7. It seems like a small load, but at that speed it isn't. Regular big shells from a battleship's 16" guns can weigh over a half a ton, but land at gravitational speed.




RE: firing rate
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/22/2007 8:41:03 AM , Rating: 2
Aye, someone more knowledgeable than myself should do the physics calculations to find out just how much force this sucker will hit with.


RE: firing rate
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 9:08:23 AM , Rating: 3
Assuming Mach 7, I calculated 8.1 MJ, or almost exactly the "8 Megajoule" rating of the test itself. Which works out to about 4 lbs of TNT. Of course, this doesn't include losses from atmospheric friction.


RE: firing rate
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/22/2007 9:54:02 AM , Rating: 2
Proofs or nefs!


RE: firing rate
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 10:29:47 AM , Rating: 2
lol, put that math degree to work Kris!


RE: firing rate
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/22/2007 10:49:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Which works out to about 4 lbs of TNT.

If anyone is interested, there's 4184 joules in 1 gram of TNT -- for weapons calculations anyway.

(8.1 * 10^6) / 4184 = 1935 grams TNT
1935 grams runs out to 4.26 pounds


RE: firing rate
By S3anister on 1/22/2007 8:28:46 PM , Rating: 2
Kristopher, if you read this... i just wonder do you know much energy it would take in the first place to fire off this weapon?

would it be 8-Megajoules? or is that just its explosive rating?

i'm a little lost at this point because the lack of (i'm assuming at this point) classified data.


RE: firing rate
By S3anister on 1/22/2007 8:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
sorry, not explosive rating (since this isn't explosive) but rather... energy discharge rating upon impact.


RE: firing rate
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/22/2007 9:02:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Kristopher, if you read this... i just wonder do you know much energy it would take in the first place to fire off this weapon?

Well, the 8MJ rating denotes that the device uses 8 megajoules of capacitors. This is an all-kinetic weapon, meaning the energy you put into it is going to be the same energy that comes out at the other end (or less).

How do we arrive at the "explosive force" calculated above? As masher said, the quick and dirty way of calculating the potential energy of an impact is by realizing the kinetic energy at impact is going to be the same, PE (U) = KE. Well, you're only going to have as much KE as what you originally put into the device (or less).

So assuming 100% efficiency (all 8MJ are converted into accelerating the bolt) when the bolt hits something it would still have 100% of the energy we put into it, 8MJ.

In reality it's considerably less since firing the gun is probably not a 100% efficient process and because the bolt loses energy as it travels through the atmosphere. But I'm a math major, I'll let a physicist deal with that!


RE: firing rate
By Fenixgoon on 1/22/2007 10:00:34 AM , Rating: 2
your answer (with a lot of assumptions, mind you!):

basic physics impulse problem: F = delta p/delta t. 26kg object moving at mach7 (assume M1 = 343 m/s) = 62426 kg-m/s. let's say it goes from that to 0 in 1/1000 of a second. 62426/.001 = 62.426 million newtons, or about 14 million pounds of force.


i'm sure some ambitious physicist will outdo me on this =P


RE: firing rate
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 10:10:37 AM , Rating: 3
There's a simpler way to do it that doesn't require any assumptions about deceleration time. Since pe = ke, just calculate 1/2(3.2kg)(344m/s*7)^2.


RE: firing rate
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/22/2007 10:37:37 AM , Rating: 2
Hey Masher,

Same equations, but I got 9.277 * 10^6 J, 9.27 megajoules. Since you can't have more coming out of this gun than what's put in, they are probably a little over ambitious with that Mach 7 estimation.

Kristopher


RE: firing rate
By masher2 (blog) on 1/22/2007 11:08:00 AM , Rating: 2
Time for me to get a new calculator...or skinnier fingers.


RE: firing rate
By Hexxx on 1/23/2007 11:06:12 AM , Rating: 2
The speed of sound varies with altitude and temperature. A 3.5kg shell with 8MJ of energy is travelling at roughly 305.4m/s * 7. At 29,000m the speed of sound is 301m/s so although the figure of mach 7 sounds optimistic, it is theoretically possible.


RE: firing rate
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/24/2007 3:19:55 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely. But I don't think they are going to be firing these from B52s anytime soon -- it's a Navy project!


RE: firing rate
By Hexxx on 1/29/2007 12:46:53 PM , Rating: 2
They don't need to fire it from altitude, the mach number could still increase as the projectile gains altitude even though the velocity of the projectile is decreasing. In other words, at some point in it's trajectory the temperature and atmospheric pressure may be conducive to a higher mach number, even though the projectile was at it's highest velocity as soon as it left the turret and is now travelling slower. I think they are relying on this factor when calculating a "possible" mach 7.


RE: firing rate
By Tyler 86 on 1/22/2007 8:42:17 AM , Rating: 2
One of the promises of rail-guns was quicker and sustained refire rate way back when the first notion of using EM to launch a projectile...
Provided they have the capacitance (I think?) they should be able to fire that puppy fully automatic... Artillery carpet-run... Yum. Does that qualify as a WMD? It's still conventional? Grins.

Given some cheaper low-quality KE ammunition and a more short-range proportionate charge, it should make for a great all purpose deck-gun replacement.

Here's hoping for MAD.


Bah!
By Rob94hawk on 1/22/2007 4:21:11 AM , Rating: 2
Pics are so 2006.

I wanna see a vid of the projectile hitting an M1 abhrams or German Leopard tank!

I wonder how fast the recharge is?

Too much info left out. Darn that classified info.




RE: Bah!
By Captain Orgazmo on 1/22/2007 5:43:09 AM , Rating: 2
How about a vid of the slug going through a line of approximately 1000 taliban/al-qaeda fighters?

I don't really see the point of such a weapon... the military needs more precision guided munitions and unmanned fighting vehicles (and in the case of the US Army/National Guard, better training). Also, the surface fleet of the Navy is beyond obsolete... a few dozen exocets (or those underwater rockets Iran just got their hands on), or a tactical nuke and a multi-billion dollar carrier group (plus thousands of dead sailors) becomes the newest coral reef.


RE: Bah!